32

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

(2010-11)

FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA

Ministry of Planning

APPRAISAL OF BPL CRITERIA

THIRTY SECOND REPORT

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

March, 2011/ Phalguna, 1932 (Saka)

1
 THIRTY SECOND REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

(2010-2011)

(FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA)

Ministry of Planning

APPRAISAL OF BPL CRITERIA

Presented to Lok Sabha on 18 March, 2011

Laid in Rajya Sabha on 18 March, 2011

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

March, 2011/ Phalguna, 1932 (Saka)

2
 CONTENTS

Page No
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (iii)
INTRODUCTION (v)

REPORT
PART - I
BACKGROUND ANALYSIS
Sl.No Subject
A. Introduction 1
(i) Definition of Poverty Line 1
(ii) Estimation of Poverty 6
(iii) Identification of Below Poverty Line (BPL) 12
(iv) Unit of ‗Household‘ in BPL Census 14
(v) Poverty Alleviation Programmes – Role of BPL 16
Criteria
B. BPL Identification – Criteria 17
(i) Evolution of BPL Criteria 17
(ii) Conducting next BPL Census 26
(iii) Proposed Food Security Act 28

C. Divergence between estimated and identified population 29

Below Poverty Line (BPL)
(i) Estimation of BPL
29
(ii) Other Estimates of Poverty
29
(iii) BPL Population identified by the State
31
Governments vis-à-vis estimates of the Planning
Commission

D. Implementation of Welfare Schemes for the Poor 35

(i) Welfare Schemes for rural poor 36
(ii) Welfare Schemes for urban poor 41
(iii) Public Distribution System 42

3
 (iv) Antyodaya Anna Yojana 45
(v) National Rural Health Mission 46
(vi) Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment 47
Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)
(vii) Monitoring of Welfare Schemes 48

Part II
Recommendations/Observations of the Committee……………………………… 51

ANNEXURES

I Percentage of population below poverty line by States

II Minutes of the sittings of the Committee held on 31 May, 14 July,
29 September, 2010 and 15 March, 2011

4
 COMPOSITION OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE – 2010-2011

Shri Yashwant Sinha - Chairman

MEMBERS
LOK SABHA

2. Dr. Baliram (Lalganj)

3. Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay
4. Shri C.M. Chang
5. Shri Harishchandra Chavan
6. Shri Bhakta Charan Das
7. Shri Khagen Das
8. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta
9. Shri Nishikant Dubey
10. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
11. Shri Mangani Lal Mandal
12. Smt. Jaya Prada Nahata
13. Shri Rayapati Sambasiva Rao
14. Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy
15. Shri Sarvey Sathyanarayana
16. Shri G.M. Siddeshwara
17. Shri N. Dharam Singh
18. Shri Manicka Tagore
19. Dr. M. Thambidurai
20. Shri Anjankumar M. Yadav
21. Dr. Kavuru Sambasiva Rao*

RAJYA SABHA

22. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia

23. Shri Raashid Alvi
24. Shri Vijay Jawaharlal Darda
25. Shri Piyush Goyal
26. Shri Moinul Hassan
27. Shri Satish Chandra Misra
28. Shri Mahendra Mohan
29. Dr. Mahendra Prasad
30. Dr. K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao
31. Shri Y.P. Trivedi
SECRETARIAT
1. Shri A.K. Singh - Joint Secretary
2. Shri T.G. Chandrasekhar - Additional Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan - Deputy Secretary

* Nominated to this Committee w.e.f. 28.01.2011 vice Shri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, ceased
to be a member of the Committee on his resignation from Lok Sabha

5
 INTRODUCTION

I, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, having been authorized by the
Committee, present this Thirty-Second Report on ‘Appraisal of BPL Criteria‘.
2. The Committee obtained Background note and written information on the subject
from the Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Ministry of Rural
Development (Department of Rural Development), Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation and various States and Union Territories.
3. Written views/memoranda were received from Prof. M.H. Suryanarayana, IGIDR,
Mumbai, Dr. Himanshu, JNU, Delhi, Dr. Suranjan Sengupta, Kolkata and Prof. Indrani Gupta, IEG,
Delhi.
4. The Committee, at their sitting held on 31 May, 2010 took evidence of the representatives
of the Ministry of Planning and Ministry of Rural Development (Department of Rural Development).
On 14 July, 2010, the Committee heard the views of Dr. Shubhasis Gangopadhyay, Prof. M.R. Saluja
and Prof. Indrani Gupta on the subject. They also took evidence of the representatives of the Ministry
of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation.
5. The Committee took further evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of
Planning and Ministry of Rural Development (Department of Rural Development) on 29 September,
2010.
6. The Committee, considered and adopted the draft report at their sitting held on 15
March, 2011.
7. The Committee wish to express their thanks to the officials of the Ministry of
Planning, Ministry Rural Development (Department of Rural Development), Ministry of Housing &
Urban Poverty Alleviation for appearing before the Committee and furnishing the requisite material
and information which were desired in connection with the examination of the Bill.
8. The Committee also wish to express their thanks to Prof. M.H. Suryanarayana,
IGIDR, Mumbai, Dr. Himanshu, JNU, Delhi, Dr. Suranjan Sengupta, Kolkata, Prof. Indrani Gupta,
IEG, Delhi. Dr. Shubhasis Gangopadhyay, IDF, Gurgaon and Prof. M.R. Saluja, IDF, Gurgaon, for
placing before them the requisite material and their considered views in connection with the
examination of the subject.

New Delhi; YASHWANT SINHA

15 March, 2011 Chairman,
24 Phalguna, 1932(Saka) Standing Committee on Finance.

6
 Report
Part I
Background Analysis
A. Introduction

1.0 Poverty alleviation programmes have been the cornerstone of

economic policy and planning since independence. Reliable estimation of poverty is
the first step towards eradication of poverty as they provide the basic input for
design, implementation and monitoring of anti poverty programmes. Crucial input for
measurement of poverty is defining a poverty line.
(i) Definition of Poverty Line
1.1 Defining a poverty line is the first step in measurement of poverty
which divides the poor from the non-poor.
(a) Task Force on Projection of Minimum needs and Effective
Consumption Demand

Planning Commission set up a Task Force on Projection of Minimum

needs and Effective Consumption Demand under the Chairmanship of Dr. Y. K.
Alagh in 1979 to determine poverty line. It defined the poverty line as per capita
consumption expenditure level which meets the average per capita daily calorie
requirement of 2435 kcal (say 2400 kcal) in the rural areas and 2095 kcal (say 2100
kcal) in urban areas along with the associated quantum of expenditure on non-food
items such as clothing, shelter, transport, education, health care etc. The Task Force
calculated the average calorie requirements from the age, sex and activity
distribution of the population and associated calorie norm recommended by the
nutrition experts of the Indian Council of Medical Research.
1.2 Accordingly, the poverty line for rural areas was fixed at per capita
monthly consumption expenditure of Rs. 49.09 and for urban areas at Rs. 56.6.
These poverty line expenditures conform to a consumption basket which also meets
a minimum of non-food requirements like clothing, shelter, transport, education and
health care etc.
(b) Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor

1.3 The Planning Commission, in 1989, constituted the Expert Group on

Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor (Lakdawala Committee) to look into

7
the methodology for estimation of poverty and to redefine the poverty line, if
necessary. The Expert Group recommended that Task Force Poverty line which
quantified at the national level separately in rural and urban areas be adopted.
Further, the Expert Group disaggregated the National Poverty lines separately in
rural and urban areas into States specific poverty lines in order to reflect the inter
state price differentials.
1.4 Major recommendations of the Expert Group are as follows:
(a) ―The Poverty Line recommended by the Task Force on projection of
minimum needs and effective consumption demand, namely a monthly per
capita total expenditure of Rs.49.09 (rural) and Rs.56.64(urban) rounded
respectively to Rs.49 and Rs.57 at all India level at 1973-74 prices be
adopted as the base line. This was anchored in the recommended per
capita daily intake of 2400 calories in rural areas and 2100 calories in
urban areas with reference to the consumption pattern as obtained in
1973-74. The Group recommends that these norms may be adopted
uniformly for all State.
(b) Given that much systematic work has already been done with the base
1973-74, the Group is in favour of continuing it as the base year for
estimating the poverty line.
(c) State-specific poverty line should be estimated as follows. The
standardised commodity basket corresponding to the poverty line at the
national level should be valued at the prices prevailing in each State in the
base year, i.e., 1973-74. For updating poverty line to the current prices in
a given year, a State-specific consumer price-index needs to be formed.
For this purpose, the observed all-India consumption pattern of the 20 to
30 per cent of the population around the poverty line in 1973-74 should
constitute the State-specific weighting diagram. This diagram should be
used in the construction of State-specific price index over the years using
the disaggregated commodity indices from the consumer price- index for
the agricultural labourers (rural) and consumer price index for the
industrial workers and non- manual employees (urban).
(d) After considering various possible choices for the deflator, the Group
came to the conclusion that it would be most suitable to rely on the
disaggregated commodity indices from Consumer Price Index for
Agricultural Labourers (CPIAL) to update the rural poverty line and a
simple average of suitably weighted commodity indices of consumer price
index for industrial workers (CPIIW) and consumer price index of non-
manual employees (CPINM) for updating the urban poverty line.
(e) Given the updated State-specific poverty lines and the corresponding size
distribution of per capita consumption expenditure (PCTE) of National
Sample Survey (NSS), the number of poor as a percentage of total
population or the poverty ratio should be calculated separately for rural
and urban areas for each State. The absolute number of poor in each
State in rural and urban areas should be calculated by applying the

8
 poverty ratio to the estimated population as given by the Registrar General
of Census. The all-India (rural or urban) poverty ratio should be derived as
a ratio of the aggregate number of State-wise poor persons to the total all-
India (rural and urban) population. The implicit all-India poverty line may
be worked out, given the all- India poverty ratio and the all- India
distribution of population by expenditure classes obtained from the same
NSS survey.
(f) (i) The poverty-ratio of Assam has been adopted for Sikkim and the
North-eastern States namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura. In case of Manipur, the population
distribution by expenditure classes and the price indices, both are
available. But the use of such information for estimating the incidence of
poverty in Manipur gave poverty ratios which were completely out of line
with the poverty ratios in the other North-Eastern States and also the
numbers and the ratios were not very consistent over the years. This
happened because of the sample size. Hence the Group preferred to
adopt the poverty-ratio of Assam for Manipur also.
(ii) For Goa, Daman and Diu, the poverty line of Maharashtra and the
population distribution by expenditure classes for Goa was used.
(iii) Among the Union Territories, for Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the
poverty -ratio of Tamil Nadu, for Lakshdweep the poverty ratio of Kerala,
for Dadra and Nagar Haveli the poverty-ratio of Goa, and for Pondicherry
the poverty ratio of Tamil Nadu was used. For rural and urban Chandigarh
the Group used the urban poverty-ratio of Punjab‖.

1.5 The estimates of the proportion and number of poor based on the
methodology recommended by this Group are as given below:
Year Rural % of persons Urban % of Combined % of
persons persons
1973-74 56.44 49.23 54.93
1977-78 53.07 47.40 51.81
1983 45.61 42.15 44.76
1987-88 39.06 40.12 39.36

1.6 The Group also suggested certain priority areas for research and data
improvement for improving poverty estimates in future. These are as follows:
(a)―Non -availability of appropriate State-specific cost of living
indices is an important gap in data availability for making
State-specific estimates of poverty. This Group
recommends taking immediate steps to construct the price
indices representing changes in consumer prices of the
poor at relevant disaggregated levels.
(b) The estimates of the poverty-ratio derived from the NSS

9
 provide a composite picture of the number of people whose
per capita consumption expenditure is below the level
corresponding to the basket of commodities constituting the
desired minimum. It does not, however, provide a complete
picture of the State of well-being of the population.
Therefore, the estimates of the proportion and number of
poor needs to be supplemented with the assessment of the
following aspects in order to capture a fuller picture of the
living conditions and well being of the poor:
(i) The composition of the poor population in terms of dominant
characteristics, i.e., their distribution by region, social group,
family characteristics (e.g., size, education, age, sex of
household head, dependency ratio) and the way this is
changing over time. Much of this can be done by appropriate
tabulation of NSS employment and consumption survey
data.
(ii) Nutritional status of the population: levels of intake of
principal nutrients, incidence of malnourishment,
anthropometric measurements and activity patterns by age,
sex and socio-economic categories. This can be done by the
National Institute of Nutrition.
(iii) Health status: mortality (overall, infant and child,
maternal); morbidity; access to and use of health services
(public and private) and costs. The quinquennial surveys of
public consumption as well as the mortality indicators based
on the Sample Registration System and the morbidity
surveys of NSS need to be put on a systematic and
continuing basis.
(iv) Educational status: school enrolment by region, sex and
age group and by economic-social class; reach and quality
of public education services and costs. Here again
information from the NSS social consumption enquiries and
the all-India Education Survey suitably restructured would
provide the basic data.
(v) Living Environment: distribution by density of settlement;
living space per head; type of houses; access to safe
drinking water and sanitation; access to amenities (post
office, telephones, railway, pucca road, markets, etc).
© In some aspects like nutrition where basic issues concerning
the concept of under-nourishment and minimum
requirements for healthy active individuals are under
controversy, further research is necessary to improve our
understanding. Besides encouraging improvements in the
range and quality of survey data, the Planning Commission
should also support research on some of these basic issues.
The poverty line is also used for the operational identification
of poor households in order to determine their eligibility for
benefits under targeted anti-poverty schemes notably the

10
 IRDP. We believe that, in principle, the improved estimates
we have recommended will make them more usable for this
purpose. In practice, however, it is difficult to estimate or
verify incomes or consumption expenditure at the level of
individual households. In these circumstances, the "first
information' indicator provided by the poverty-ratio under this
methodology needs to be supplemented and corrected with
other indicators - which may also be more readily verifiable
than income or consumption expenditure. This is important
in order to refine targeting so that the ineligible are excluded
from, and the eligible are fully covered in, the intended
benefits from targetted anti-poverty programmes.
(d) At present, the agencies concerned with the implementation
of poverty-alleviation programmes resort to special surveys
to identify the eligible households. Such surveys, besides
being expensive, cannot really give a correct picture
because they may suffer from the reporting bias which arises
when it is known to form the basis for identifying
beneficiaries of Government assistance. Analysis of data
relating to sample households obtained form the NSS can
give us an idea of certain easily identifiable characteristics of
poor households. Such analyses have already been
attempted on a limited scale and they show that the ranks of
the poor tend to have a relatively high concentration of
households with large household size, high-dependency-
ratio and female heads, rural households which do not
cultivate any land, and households belonging to scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes. It should be possible from the
NSS data to estimate,by State and region, separately for
rural and urban areas, the probability of a household being
poor for various values of each of these characteristics taken
individually and in combination. Once this is done, it should
be possible to give guidelines for identifying the poor
households in a given locality of the region in terms of the
value of specified characteristics, information on which is
already available in the population census or can be
collected without much expense. We would urge the
Planning Commission to take the initiative in exploring these
possibilities.‖

1.7 Based on the Expert Group methodology, the poverty lines in 2004-05
at all India level has been calculated by Planning Commission as Rs. 356.30 per
capita per month for rural areas and Rs. 538.60 per capita per month for urban
areas. The State specific rural poverty lines calculated by the Expert Group in 1973-
74 are updated by using state specific Consumer Price Indices of Agricultural

11
Labourers (CPI-AL). Similarly the state specific urban poverty lines are updated by
state specific Consumer Price Indices of Industrial Workers (CPI-IW).
(ii) Estimation of Poverty
1.8 Incidence of poverty is estimated by the Planning Commission on the
basis of the large sample surveys on household consumer expenditure conducted
by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) on a quinquennial basis.

Household Consumer Expenditure (HCE) surveys conducted by National Sample

Survey Organisation (NSSO)
1.9 One of the most important data requirements for assessment of
inequality and deprivation is that relating to levels of income of the people and
corresponding expenditure by them for meeting their various needs. Since, such
data are generally not available through any other data sources of the statistical
system, direct data collection through large scale sample surveys on the subject
‗Household Consumer Expenditure‘ (HCE) becomes an important statistical
exercise. A Comprehensive survey of household consumer expenditure (HCE) is a
valuable tool for studies of poverty and nutrition, for analysis of consumer demand,
and for assessment of the impact of specific socio-economic policies on level and
pattern of consumption. Based on the NSS HCE, the Planning Commission arrives
at the poverty line and the people living below poverty line.
Salient features of the NSS HCE surveys
1.10 NSS HCE surveys are conducted as part of the socio-economic
surveys of NSSO. A sample of villages and urban blocks is selected from the list of
Census villages and the list of urban blocks drawn up so as to cover practically the
entire geographical area of the country. Field investigators visit the selected villages
and urban blocks, list the households therein, and select the households to be
surveyed. Different samples of households are selected for the enquiry on
consumer expenditure and the other subject of enquiry such as employment,
unemployment etc. which are covered in the same round. The survey work is
spread over the entire survey year partitioned into four sub-rounds of 3 months
each, to neutralize the effect of seasonality of consumption in the estimates.
Profile of Information in NSS HCE

12
 1.11 The information collected from each surveyed household has four
parts:
(a) household characteristics other than consumption data such as
number of members, principal household industry and occupation,
social group, land possessed etc.;
(b) member characteristics such as age, sex, educational level, etc.,
collected separately for each members;
(c) data on item wise consumption by household (Total 341 items, 142
food items and 199 non food items); and
(d) possession by the household of certain specified durable goods on the
date of survey.

1.12 Of these, consumption data is the most important and elaborate and
consists of quantity and value of consumption by the household as a whole during a
specified period (reference period) for each of a large number of items which
together cover the entire range of consumer goods and services. No attempt is
made to ascertain person-wise consumption for any item. To reduce recall errors,
and also to take account of heterogeneity in consumption over different parts of the
country and different income levels, the schedule uses a very detailed item break-
up.
Existing methodology of poverty calculation
1.13 For the calculation of income poverty, one need (a) distribution of
households by size of per capita total expenditure that is generated by quinquennial
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) conducted by NSSO; (b) exogenously
specified poverty line; and (c) price deflator to update the poverty line to the
prevailing prices in the survey period(s) of CES. The distribution of households by
size of per capita total expenditure is obtained from NSS Consumer Expenditure
Survey (CES). The current poverty estimates are based on 61st round (2004-05)
CES data. However, in 2004-05 distribution of two Monthly Per Capita Consumer
Expenditure (MPCEs), viz., MPCE (URP – Uniform recall period) and MPCE (MRP –
Mixed recall period) were generated by NSS. Hence two poverty ratios, one using

13
MPCE (URP) and other using MPCE (MRP) were computed for each state and
sector combination and presented by Planning Commission.
1.14 Accordingly the estimates of poverty were worked out by the Planning
Commission for the years 1973-74, 1977-78, 1983, 1987-88, 1993-94 and 2004-05.
On the basis of the poverty line of Rs. 356.30 for rural areas and Rs. 538.60 for
urban areas in the year 2004-05, the percent of population below poverty line for
rural, urban and all India during 2004-05 was estimated at 28.3%, 25.7% and 27.5%.
However these estimates came in for sharp criticism as the poverty line did not allow
the consumption of required calorie norms and the periodic price corrections, carried
out to update the poverty lines were found to be inadequate and inappropriate.
Therefore the Planning Commission constituted an Expert Group under the
Chairmanship of Prof. Suresh D. Tendulkar in 2005 to review the methodology for
estimation of poverty.

Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty

1.15 Major highlights of the recommendations of the Expert Group are as
follows:
1. ―While acknowledging the multidimensional nature of poverty, the
estimates of poverty will continue to be based on private household
consumer expenditure of Indian households as collected by the
National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO).
2. The expert group has also taken a conscious decision to move
away from anchoring the poverty lines to a calorie intake norm in
view of the fact that calorie consumption calculated by converting
the consumed quantities in the last 30 days as collected by NSS
has not been found to be well correlated with the nutritional
outcomes observed from other specialized surveys either over time
or across space (i.e. between states or rural and urban areas).
3. The quinquennial National Sample Surveys of household consumer
expenditure surveys carried out by the NSSO provide the basic
data set for official poverty calculations. For canvassing household
expenditure on a recall basis, the NSSO has decided to shift to
Mixed Reference Period (MRP) for all its consumption surveys in
future, namely, 365 days for low frequency items (clothing,
footwear, durables, education and institutional health expenditure)
and 30 days for all the remaining items. This change captures the
household consumption expenditure of the poor households on low
frequency items of purchase more satisfactorily than the earlier 30
day recall period. The Expert Group decided to adopt the MRP

14
 based estimates of consumption expenditure as the basis for future
poverty lines as against the previous practice of using Uniform
Reference Period estimates of consumption expenditure.
4. Underlying consumption poverty line is the reference poverty line
basket (PLB) of household goods and services consumed by those
households at the borderline separating the poor from the non
poor. In the interest of continuity as well as in view of the
consistency with broad external validity checks with respect to
nutritional, educational and health outcomes, it was decided to
recommend MRP equivalent of urban PLB corresponding to 25.7
per cent urban headcount ratio as the new reference PLB to be
provided to rural as well as urban population in all the states after
adjusting it for within state urban relative to rural and rural and
urban state relative to all India price differentials.
5. It may be noted that while the new poverty lines have been arrived
at after assessing the adequacy of private household expenditure
on education and health, the earlier calorie anchored poverty lines
did not explicitly account for these. The proposed poverty lines are
in that sense broader in scope.
6. It may be noted that although those near the poverty line in urban
areas continue to afford the original calorie norm of 2100 per capita
per day, their actual observed calorie intake from 61st Round of
NSS is 1776 calories per capita. This actual intake is very close to
the revised calorie intake norm of 1770 per capita per day currently
recommended for India by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). Actual observed calorie intake of those near the new
poverty line in rural areas (1999 calories per capita) is higher than
the FAO norm.
7. The proposed reference PLB is situated also in the latest available
data on the observed consumption patterns from the household
consumer expenditure survey of NSS for the year 2004-05 and
takes into account all items of consumption (except transport and
conveyance) for construction of price indices. Separate allowance
for private expenditure on transport and conveyance has been
made in the recommended poverty lines.
8. The proposed price indices are based on the household level unit
values (approximated price data) obtained from the 61st round
(July 2004 to June 2005) of NSS on household consumer
expenditure survey for food, fuel and light, clothing and footwear at
the most detailed level of disaggregation and hence much closer to
the actual prices paid by the consumers in rural and urban areas.
Price indices for health and education were also obtained from unit
level data from related National Sample Surveys. The
recommended price indices take care of most of the criticisms of
the earlier population segment specific consumer price indices with
outdated base used for updating poverty lines. An added and a
significant advantage is that the recommended procedure permits
the derivation of new poverty lines and the corresponding

15
 headcount ratios for all the states including the north eastern
states. In the judgment of the Expert Group, these advantages
outweigh the problem of ignoring the quality differences in
consumption of commodities across households that is involved in
equating unit values with approximated prices.
9. The new poverty lines seek to enable rural as well as urban
population in all the states to afford the recommended all-India
urban PLB after taking due account of within-state rural-urban and
inter-state differentials (rural and urban) incorporating observed
consumer behaviour both at the all India and state levels.
10. The new poverty lines have been generated for all the states
including the north eastern states. However, in the absence of
adequate data, the expert group has suggested use of poverty line
of the neighbouring states for union territories‖.

1.16 The all-India rural headcount ratio using the recommended procedure
is 41.8 per cent in comparison with 28.3 per cent. The expert group re-estimated
poverty for states and all India for 2004-05. A preliminary exercise for 1993-94 has
been carried out by the Expert Group to facilitate a broad two point comparison of
changes in headcount ratios. By this exercise, poverty at all India level in 1993-94
was 50.1% in rural areas, 31.8% in urban areas and 45.3% in the country as a whole
as compared to the 1993-94 official estimates of 37.2 per cent rural, 32.6 per cent
urban and 36.0 per cent combined.
1.17 On the basis of above methodology, the all-India rural poverty
headcount ratio for 2004-05 is estimated at 41.8 %, urban poverty headcount ratio at
25.7% and all India level at 37.2%. Tendulkar Committee’s estimates are, however,
not strictly comparable to the present official poverty estimates because of different
methodologies. The divergent estimates for 1993-94 and 2004-05 are given below.

Poverty Ratios
1993-94 2004-05
Year Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
Planning 37.3 32.4 36.0 28.3 25.7 27.5
Commission (URP)
Tendulkar 50.1 31.8 45.3 41.8 25.7 37.2
Estimates (2004-
05) (MRP)

16
N.B.: 1. URP = URP consumption = Uniform Recall Period consumption in which the consumer
expenditure data for all the items are collected from 30-day recall period.
2. MRP = MRP consumption = Mixed Recall Period consumption in which the consumer expenditure
data for five non-food items, namely, clothing, footwear, durable goods, education and institutional
medical expenses are collected from 365-day recall period and the consumption data for the
remaining items are collected from 30-day recall period.

1.18 Following major departures were suggested by the Expert group from
the earlier methodology followed by Lakdawala Committee:

i. Moved away from calorie anchor but included the adequacy of actual
food expenditure near the poverty line to ensure certain aggregates
like nutritional outcomes.
ii. No discrimination between the rural and the urban population and
recommended to provide a uniform Poverty Line Basket (PLB) based
in the latest available observed household consumption data to both
the rural and urban populations.
iii. Recommended a price adjustment procedure that is predominantly
based in the same data set that underlines the poverty estimation. This
has been proposed to correct for the problems associated with
externally generated population segment specific price indices with
outdated price and weight base used so far in the official poverty
estimations.
iv. Recommended to incorporate an explicit provision in price indices for
private expenditure on health and education which has been rising
over time and test for their adequacy to ensure certain desirable
educational and health outcomes.

1.19 The report of the Expert Group has been accepted by the Government.
Planning Commission is going to issue a press note on identification of the poor.
1.20 In a post evidence submission, the Ministry of Housing and Urban
Poverty Alleviation have apprised the Committee about their comments on findings
of urban poverty by Expert Group headed by Tendulkar, which were forwarded to
Planning Commission which are stated as below:
―The report submitted by the Tendulkar Committee accepts the urban
poverty ratio at 25.7 per cent, while it increases the figure for rural

17
 poverty to 41.8 per cent on the basis of a uniform Poverty Line Basket
(PLB)… the figures for rural poverty have mainly increased due to the
adjustment process that basically takes care of the expenditure on
health, education and other non-food items by the poor due to the fact
that public provision on these accounts in rural areas have not kept
pace. Similar adjustment, however, has not been done for urban areas
because the urban poverty figures have been taken on ―as is given
basis‖ as reference for computation of rural poverty… urban poverty
also needs redefinition and adjustment, especially if we accept the
Tendulkar Committees‘ own argument that ―the composition of the
minimal basket of human needs that the society would expect every
citizen to satisfy may be expected to keep expanding with economic
and social progress in society‖. We do know from simple everyday
knowledge that there have been changes in the consumption
behaviour and consumption patterns of residents in cities, with housing
shortages and high level of house rents, especially for EWS and LIG
categories and with shrinking access to free health, education and
rising transportation costs. Expenditure on account of education,
health, housing and transport that the urban people are required to
spend are proportionately much more as compared to their rural
counterparts. Therefore, the assumption that urban poverty figure of
25.7 per cent is acceptable while observing that for the same reasons
rural poverty figures need readjustment requires a thorough re-
examination… Further, in case of housing, transport, conveyance, rent
etc. adjustments have been done by the Tendulkar committee by
taking into account data from NSSO on actual expenditures. However,
whether these actual expenditures are adequate to meet the minimum
basic needs on these counts have not been examined… Another
issue is whether abandoning the calorie norm is a wise step. It is true
that calorie intakes were poorly correlated with nutritional outcomes.
However, abandoning the calorie norm altogether appears to be a
controversial proposition. It is unclear whether there is any robust
basis, theoretical or empirical, for this relationship to hold at all in the
years to come.‖

(iii) Identification of Below Poverty Line (BPL) households

1.21 While Planning Commission estimates the poverty, actual identification
of the BPL households in rural areas is done by the Ministry of Rural Development
(MORD) which conducts BPL census for this purpose. As the identification of the
poor is generally done at the beginning of the Five Year Plan through door-to-door
survey with hundred per cent coverage of rural households, the MORD has been
conducting the BPL Census for this purpose. It provides financial and technical
support to States/UTs for conducting BPL Census. For identification of BPL families

18
in urban areas, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation is the nodal
agency which issues guidelines for carrying out house to house survey by the
States/Union Territories on the basis of State specific poverty lines indicated by
Planning Commission.

BPL Census in rural areas

1.22 The Ministry of Rural Development has so far conducted BPL Census
in 1992 for 8th Five Year Plan, in 1997 for 9th Five Year Plan and in 2002 for 10th
Five Year Plan.
1.23 The BPL census of 1992 used an income criterion to determine
poverty and the annual income cut-off was fixed at Rs. 11,000 per household. The
BPL Census of 1997 was conducted in two stages. First, some families were
excluded on the basis of certain criteria. In the second stage, each remaining
household was interviewed to determine its total consumer expenditure, and was
identified as a BPL household if its per capita consumer expenditure was below the
poverty line set by the planning Commission. BPL Census conducted in 2002 for the
10th Five Year Plan was based on the methodology of Score Based Ranking of rural
households for which 13 socio-economic parameters were used, each parameter
having a score between 0-4.

Expert Group to advise the Ministry of Rural Development on the methodology for
conducting the BPL Census for 11th Five Year Plan
1.24 For conducting the BPL Census for the Eleventh Five Year Plan, the
Ministry, on 12th August, 2008, constituted an Expert Group, which could advise it on
the suitable methodology. The Expert Group submitted its report on 21 st August
2009 under chairmanship of Dr. N. C. Saxena. This Group suggested automatic
exclusion and inclusion criteria on the basis of which families will be selected which
will be again ranked on the basis of points given for such characteristics as caste,
tribal groups, employment and health status etc.
1.25 The report of the Expert Group has been circulated by the Ministry of
Rural Development to the State Governments/UTs and the concerned Central
Ministries for their comments.

19
(iv) Unit of „Household‟ used in BPL Census

1.26 As per the instructions issued by the Ministry of Rural Development for
BPL Census 2002, a household is defined as a group of persons who commonly
reside together and would take their meals from a common kitchen, unless the
exigencies of work prevented any of them doing so. The household may comprise of
persons related by blood or of unrelated persons or combination of both.
1.27 As an effort to make the system of identifying the BPL families in the
rural areas more accurate, methodology for conducting the BPL Census is examined
and reviewed from time to time.
1.28 The Expert Group headed by N.C.Saxena had also recommended the
following definition of household for the BPL Census:

A joint family comprising all adults and children who eat from a common
hearth and reside under a common roof.
However for the purpose of inclusion and survey (but not exclusion), within
households which may even share a kitchen and roof, the following will be
treated as separate households:
o a single woman;
o old individuals or couples in which one or both are beyond the age of 60
years
o every adult with TB, leprosy, disability, mental illness or HIV AIDS with
spouse and children; and
o bonded labourers with spouse and children.
In case a minor has these afflictions, his/her parents and siblings will
constitute the household. This logic will also apply to bonded child workers.
1.29 The Ministry has consulted with experts and States and it has been
decided to conduct a pilot survey to arrive on the methodology for the forthcoming
BPL Census which will also include definition of households.
BPL Census for urban areas
1.30 In respect of BPL in urban areas, the guidelines issued by Ministry of
Housing and Poverty Alleviation (HUPA) for identification of BPL families in urban
areas are relevant. These stipulate that house to house survey is to be carried out

20
by the States/UTs. for identification of genuine beneficiaries on the basis of State
specific poverty lines indicated by Planning Commission from time to time. During
door to door survey focus has to be on slums and low income settlements. The
model formats & general guidelines for conducting slum survey, household survey
and livelihood survey are issued by Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
(HUPA). In addition to economic criteria of urban Poverty Line, non- economic
parameters are also suggested to be applied for identification of urban poor. The
States and UTs have the flexibility to use the parameters of their choice to identify
urban poor for providing assistance under poverty alleviation programmes on priority
basis.
1.31 Keeping in view the need to review and revisit the methodology for
identification of urban poor, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
(HUPA) had requested the Planning Commission to initiate efforts. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission has constituted an Expert Group recently to recommend
suitable methodology for identification of BPL families in urban areas under the
chairmanship of Prof. S.R. Hashim, Ex-Member, Planning Commission vide
notification dated 13th May 2010. The Terms of Reference of the Expert Group are:
(i) To recommend appropriate detailed methodology with simple, transparent
and objectively measurable indicators to identify Below Poverty Line (BPL)
households in Urban Areas for providing assistance under various schemes
targeted at the urban poor.
(ii) To recommend periodicity for the conduct of BPL Survey in Urban Areas or
the mechanisms to review such BPL list;
(iii) To recommend suitable institutional mechanism for the conduct of BPL
survey, survey questionnaire, processing of data, training, validation and
approval of urban BPL list at various levels;
(iv) To recommend suitable institutional mechanism to address grievances of
public on exclusion/ inclusion in the urban BPL list.
(v) Any other suggestions/recommendations to make the exercise of Urban BPL
survey simple, transparent and acceptable.

21
 1.32 Initially the Group was given four months period for submitting the
report, which has now been extended and the Group is expected to submit its report
by 12 January, 2011.

(v) Poverty Alleviation Programme – Role of BPL Criteria

1.33 The poverty alleviation programmes so far have been based on two
approaches viz. universal and targeted approach. While under universal
programmes beneficiaries are self selected, targeted programmes are based on
inclusion or targeting of beneficiaries, based on the criteria of Below Poverty Line
(BPL). The concept and method of estimating poverty has come in for criticism in
recent years in the context of (a) economic policy reforms based on targeted policy
interventions; and (b) the findings on economic growth involving a decline in poverty
along with an increase in calorie deprivation.
1.34 The issue of BPL criteria and identification of people below the poverty
line assumes great significance in view of its crucial role in identification of
beneficiaries of targeted poverty alleviation programmes and various welfare
schemes of the Government. The BPL survey is primarily used for PDS. Only two
programmes of Ministry of Rural Development use BPL i.e. Indira Awas Yojana and
Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana. But State Governments use it for various
purposes. Despite all the instructions for automatic inclusion and exclusion there is
vagueness in implementation of criteria giving rise to serious problems of errors in
exclusion and inclusion with corruption playing an important role in wrong
identification of people under the below poverty line.
1.35 In the light of above the Committee decided to examine the subject,
Appraisal of BPL Criteria. They invited suggestions and heard the views of experts in
the field to understand the issues involved. They received memoranda from various
States and Union Territories regarding total number of BPL population and card
holders etc. They also took evidence of the various Ministries which are directly or
indirectly related to address the problem of poverty and implementation of various
welfare schemes for the poor.

22
 1.36 Major shortcomings/problems which were highlighted during the
examination of this subject included multiple indicators/criteria used for identification
of poor, divergence of official estimates of poverty ratio with the actual incidence of
poverty, use of different methodologies for estimation and identification of poverty,
restricting the identification of poor in States to the cap fixed by the Planning
Commission, lack of proper implementation of various welfare schemes directed to
poor etc. The Committee have examined these issues in detail in subsequent
sections.

B. BPL identification - Criteria

(i) Evolution of BPL Criteria

2.0 The Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) was the first
programme targeted to rural poor and aimed at providing self employment to the
poor through acquisition of productive assets or appropriate scheme which would
generate additional income on a sustained basis to enable them to cross the poverty
line. It was launched in 1980 in all the blocks of the country. Rural families having
annual income below Rs. 4800 were to be assisted under IRDP. But families with
an annual income upto Rs. 3500 were to be assisted first. Thus the focus was
centred on poorest of the poor. However, no census or survey was carried out to
identify poor families. It was found later that a large number of ineligible people got
benefits of this programme. Therefore the issue of devising criteria to identify poor
assumed great significance. With the objective of identifying poor, the Ministry of
Rural Development has conducted three BPL Census in rural areas since 1992. It
also provides technical assistance, in shape of methodology and guidelines, survey
instrument, training etc. to the States and UTs to conduct the BPL Census.
2.1 The BPL survey of 1992 used income criterion to determine poverty.
This survey determined the poor using the family based income level of Rs. 11000
per year. However this criterion could not reflect the true picture of poverty. In the
next BPL census of 1997 consumption criteria was adopted to identify poor. Also
exclusion criteria was used to rule out ineligible families in the first place. This
Census was also criticized for the use of exclusion criteria.

23
 2.2 For the BPL census of 2002, the Ministry of Rural Development
adopted a methodology of score- based ranking of household, as suggested by an
Expert Group, headed by Dr. P. L. Sanjeev Reddy. Thirteen socio economic
indicators were used to identify the poor families. These were:
1. Land holding
2. Type of House
3. Availability of Clothing
4. Food Security
5. Sanitation
6. Ownership of consumer durables
7. Literacy status of highest literate
8. Status of Household Labour
9. Means of Livelihood
10. Status of Children
11. Type of indebtedness
12. Reason for migration
13. Preference for Assistance
2.3 For each of these thirteen indicators, the households are awarded
scores in a five-point scale from 0 to 4. The scores are inversely related to the
poverty and deprivation of the household. A low score indicates a higher level of
poverty and deprivation and vice-versa. For each household, the scores from these
13 indicators are summed up to get the aggregate score of the household. The
aggregate score of a household can range from a minimum of zero to a maximum of
52. The households are arranged in ascending order to get BPL List with the State
wise upper limits defined by the poverty ratios released by the Planning
Commission.
2.4 However, using this criterion, errors of inclusion and exclusion far
exceeded the acceptable limits. One of the important feature of the guidelines issued
for BPL census 2002 was to put the ceiling on the number of BPL households to be
identified in conformity with the poverty estimates of Planning Commission. The
State Governments were asked to select the poorest households such that the total
percentage of such families did not cross the limit fixed by Planning Commission.

24
However several States selected more than this limit and many of them objected to
the cap imposed by the Planning Commission.
2.5 During the examination of the Demands for Grants (2010-11), the
Ministry of Planning explained the reasons for divergence in variation in the
estimates of BPL population as brought by the State Governments, Ministry of Rural
Development and the Planning Commission, as under:-
―It may be clarified that Planning Commission is the nodal agency to
estimate poverty in the country. The Ministry of Rural Development
undertakes an exercise through the States and UTs to identify the BPL
families in the rural areas for targeting them under its various
programmes which is different from estimation of poverty. For BPL
census 2002 conducted by the Ministry of Rural Development, the
States were provided enough flexibility to identify the number of BPL
households in rural areas. The States were given the option to identify
the number of BPL families equal to the poverty estimates of 1999-
2000 or the adjusted share worked out by the Planning Commission,
whichever is higher. Further, additional 10% was allowed to account
for the transient poor‖.

2.6 Apprising the Committee about serious inconsistencies found in

poverty data, as ascertained on the basis of the socio economic indicators and the
reasons for delay in conducting next BPL census, the Secretary, Ministry of Rural
Development, stated following during the evidence held on 31.05.2010:
―Of course, the bigger problem was that there were several analyses
and there were a large number of complaints that a part of the BPL
population had been missed out. It had later transpired from these
reports that for instance 86 per cent of the APL population had the
ration cards, which were meant for the BPL. It also transpired from
some studies that almost 17 per cent of the richest quintile of the rural
population was found not in place in the BPL and they had BPL cards.
Some studies are also there to indicate that about 28 per cent of the
BPL population is placed in the APL groups. In the meantime, there
was a court case, namely, PUCL Vs. the Union of India, and in that
court case the final verdict was given in 2006 and that is how the
survey which should have been conducted in 2007 got delayed and it
is getting conducted now.‖

2.7 The Ministry of Rural Development, on 12th August, 2008, constituted

an Expert Group, which could advise it on the suitable methodology for conducting
the BPL Census for the Eleventh Five Year Plan. The Expert Group submitted its

25
report on 21st August 2009 under chairmanship of Dr. N. C. Saxena. This group
suggested a higher percentage of poverty, as stated below:
―The percentage of rural population that is poor, and is not able to
satisfy the minimum required calorie needs, nor is able to consume the
minimum cereal required for healthy living, is far greater than the
present cut-off line of 28.3%. The Committee would therefore strongly
recommend that the percentage of people entitled to BPL status
should be drastically revised upwards to at least 50%, though the
calorie norm of 2400 would demand this figure to be about 80%.”

2.8 This Group suggested identification of poor families according to the

criteria as listed below:

Automatic exclusion
The households which fulfill any one of the following conditions will not be
surveyed for BPL status:
a) Families who own double the land of the district average of the agricultural
land per agricultural household if partially or wholly irrigated (3 times if
completely un-irrigated).
b) Families who have three or four wheeled motorized vehicles, such as jeeps,
SUVs etc.
c) Families who have at least one mechanized farm equipment, such as
tractor, power tiller, thresher, harvester, etc.
d) Families who have any person who is drawing a salary of over Rs. 10,000
per month in non-government/ private organizations or is employed in
government (including para-statals) on a regular basis with pension or
equivalent benefits.
e) Income tax payers.

Automatic inclusion
The following would be compulsorily included in the BPL list:
a) Designated Primitive Tribal Group
b) Designated most discriminated against SC groups, called ‗Maha Dalit
Groups‘, if so identified by the state

26
c) Single women headed households
d) Households with disabled persons as bread-earner
e) Household headed by a minor
f) Destitute households which are dependent predominantly on alms for
survival
g) Homeless households

Survey of the remaining rural households by scoring

2.9 The survey will rank remaining families according to the scale and
weight-ages given below. The proposed scoring for the ranking on a scale of ten
is as follows:
a) SC/ST: 3 points
b) De-notified Tribes, and Designated ‗Most Backward Castes‘: 2 points;
Muslim/OBC : 1 point
c) Landless agricultural worker: 4 points; agricultural labourer (with some
land): 3 points; casual workers: 2 points; self-employed artisans or self-
employed fisher folk (including those employed by others in such
professions): 2 points
d) No adult (above thirty years of age) has studied up to class 5 in the
household: 1 point
e) Any member of the household has TB, leprosy, disability, mental illness or
HIV AIDS : 1 point
f) Household headed by an old person of age 60 and above: 1 point

2.10 An expert, Prof. Indrani Gupta, in her note submitted to the Committee
stated that at present there are two approaches for identification of poor; one
suggested by Shri N.C. Saxena and other suggested by Jean Dreze and Reetika
Khera. The approach of Dreze and khera has been stated as follows:

―It includes among priority groups SC/ST households, landless

households with no adult educated beyond class five, households led
by single women and households with one adult working as agricultural
labour. For the purpose of identifying the poorer among the selected, it

27
 suggests binary scoring, which is giving a single mark to each of the
five indicators. Anyone with even one score gets a BPL card and two
scores get an Antyodaya card. The experts also suggest an option of
exclusion based on three other criteria; one, possession of car,
refrigerator, colour TV, scooters, and landline phone; second, having
piped water, power and flush toilet; and thirdly, ownership of multi-
room house or multi-storied house.‖

2.11 It is found that identification of BPL remains the most important

problem in addressing poverty. Speaking on the persistent problem of inclusion and
exclusion error, the Member Secretary, Planning Commission, stated the following
during the course of oral evidence held on 31st May and 29th September, 2010:

―I would like to mention that in April, 2008 when we began the

distribution of smart cards for health insurance, we began with BPL
although we were not happy about confining it to BPL. The inclusion in
the BPL list is as much an expression of power as exclusion is an
expression of lack of power. That is a fact on the ground.
We would agree with you and the Honorable Committee that certainly
the expected results are not there. I also agree that inclusion in the
BPL list is the desire of every person in the village because our effort is
to direct the spending from both Consolidated Fund of India and the
State Consolidated Fund which is actually focused on those who are in
the official below poverty line.
We do accept the fact and I personally feel that people can slip back
and forth into the poverty line. One illness in the family or one disaster
can put the family into destitution even though they may have been
actually above the poverty line, basically quite stable as a family and
they would get nothing because they are not included at the time when
the Census is done. So the dynamism of the rural society and people
slippages back and forth are not actually part of the way we are doing
things.‖

2.12 While suggesting introduction of ―coupon system‖ for delivery of

subsidized grains through public distribution system, the Economic Survey 2009-10,
states following on the issue of identification of BPL:
―For the full success of this ―coupons system‖ what is needed is an
effective method of identifying the poor. This is where the Unique
Identification (UID) System, an initiative already launched by the
present Government, under the Unique Identification Authority of India
(UIDAI) comes into play. Since the UID System will come into effect in
2012 and the roster of individuals registered in it will gradually move
towards completion, it is possible to plan on a switch to a coupons
system by 2012 and also let it achieve full maturity as the UID

28
 registration moves to completion. Since the Unique Identification will
not, in itself, have information on people‘s poverty status, these kinds
of tailoring of information will need to be added on to the UID System.
Further, since households do move in and out of BPL status there has
to be provision for updating on information. However, it is not
necessary to wait for the entire UID System to be in place to begin the
switch to the coupons system. This is because even our current
method of rations relies on ration shops having with them lists of BPL
customers whom they are meant to serve. So some identification of
BPL citizens is already available and this can be used to hand over
coupons to these individuals.‖

2.13 In her memorandum submitted by Prof. Gupta, following additional

criteria (in addition to those suggested by N.C. Saxena and Dreze and Khera) have
been suggested for identification of poor:
“Health expenditure: The Expert Group set by the Planning
Commission to review the methodology for estimation of poverty under
the chairmanship of Prof. Suresh Tendulkar also looked at the links
between health and poverty. It will be possible to collect information
on the number of illnesses of household members in the last one
month, which would certainly indicate to a certain extent the possible
economic burden on households from poor health outcomes.

Indebtedness: Evidence indicates that households go into debt for a

variety of reasons, in addition to illness, like weddings, education etc.
NSS Report No. 503 on ―Household Assets Holding, Indebtedness,
Current Borrowings and Repayments of Social Groups in India (as on
30.06.2002)‖ based on the All-India Debt and Investment Survey
(AIDIS) indicate for example, that about 27 percent of the rural
households were indebted while only 18 per cent of the urban
households were indebted. The proportion of indebted households or
incidence of indebtedness was highest for OBC households in both
rural and urban areas, and was 29 per cent for rural and 21 per cent
for urban households. For ST households, the incidence was 18 per
cent in the rural areas and 12 per cent in the urban areas. For SC
households, this was 27 per cent in the rural areas and 19 per cent in
the urban areas.

Thus, the extent of indebtedness is an important variable that should

find its way in the list of indicators for identification.

Ownership and type of residence: This is almost always a good

indicator of the status of households, and a simple 3-way stratification
like kuccha, semi-pukka and pukka would be sufficient.

29
Ratio of total household members to the total working members: While
the inclusion criteria of landless household with no adult educated
beyond class V is useful, it may not be sufficient if the same household
members happen to be engaged in some economically productive
occupation or are self-employed. Instead, the criterion could look at
the ratio of total household members to the total working members in
the household. For example, if the household size is 8 and there are
only 2 working members, this ratio would be 4, i.e. 4 members to be
supported by each working member.

Number of children working: This is an important indicator of the

economic status of households. Clearly, this will not be an easy
variable to get response on; however, schooling status in conjunction
with other probing questions may yield some information.

Dependency ratio: (a) the number of children and (b) the number of
elderly per earning household member, which would indicate the
economic strain on a household. These are also useful indicators
because these would in turn determine to a certain extent the
additional burden emanating from schooling of children and ill health of
children but especially the elderly, the latter due to chronic conditions.
In fact the demographic composition of the household along with
information on work status is going to remain a key variable for
identification of vulnerable households.

Asset sale in recent past: Instead of a direct asset question, a more

easily answerable question will be on sale of assets in the last one
year. Any household that has been forced to sell major assets may
very well qualify as vulnerable in conjunction with other variables.

Operational methodology

The identification of the poor must be based on a multidimensional

approach and should include the criteria that can be easily observable:
the following criteria are directly or easily observable:
a. Type & ownership of housing
b. Education of head of household
c. Whether female headed
For the remaining parameters, simple probing would suffice:
d. Total household size
i. Number of school going children below age 15
ii. Number of non-working elderly (62 & above)
iii. Others
e. Number of employed household members
f. Employment status (the exact definition may be subsequently
decided)
g. Land holding

30
 Whether household has any large debts (a cut off for the
amount may be decided)
Whether sold one or more of the following in the last one year:
o Land
o House
o Farm animals
o Agricultural implements
o Jewellery

Like implied in the two earlier approaches, a matrix of vulnerability

can be built up and households ranked accordingly. It is also
possible to use different weights for different responses: for
example, homeless can take a value of 3, kuccha 2 and semi-
pukka 1. The idea is that a higher total indicates a higher
vulnerability and, therefore, is an indication of poverty. However,
the weighting will have to be done carefully and is a later exercise.
Like the previous approaches, there can be a set of exclusion
criteria as well, and in conjunction with the inclusion criteria will give
a comprehensive picture of those who can be labeled poor,
including the very poor, depending on a scoring matrix.‖

2.14 A memorandum submitted to the Committee by an expert in the field,

Dr.Himanshu, highlights the crux of the problem of identifying BPL according to the
existing methodology, and suggests alternative ways available to capture the
genuine BPL, as stated below:

―The methodologies suggested by N C Saxena Committee and Dreze

use characteristics which are difficult to verify and need to be clearly
defined and are possibly disincentives. For example, agricultural
labour, artisan and so on which need to be clearly defined. Also
operated land or owned land need to be defined. Even other
characteristics such as ownership of durables and incomes are difficult
to verify. Some of these durables could also lead to disincentive
effects.
The methodology for identification of BPL should have following
characteristics:
Should be a good proxy of poverty (for example, agricultural
labour households, SCST households, households with illiterate
head of households and so on)
Should be easily identifiable and measurable and clearly
defined (rules out characteristics which can not be measured,
such as perceptions on food availability etc.)

31
 Should not be a disincentive (rules out indicators such as child
labour, availability of toilets etc.)
Should be stable in the medium run if not in the long run
(ownership of durables)
It should be verifiable using secondary data such as land, using
visual inspection such as housing characteristics, using
community institutions such as Gram Sabha or Panchayats‖

2.15 Further the Member Secretary, Planning Commission, while deposing

before the Committee, emphasized the role of local Governments in identification of
poor also, as follows:
―One more thing I would like to submit is about the role of the local
Governments. It has not yet been fully internalised. In fact, we find that
wherever local Governments have been empowered, even the
identification of those who deserve all the help, it is much better.
Therefore, there is a connection between these two, that is, empowerment
of local Governments – the Panchayats – and also making sure that the
municipalities play their constitutionally mandated role for identification of
poor. We have done that in Kerala. I think the efforts that are being made
by Kutumb Shri in Kerala perhaps act as a model.‖

(ii) Conducting next BPL Census

2.16 The Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development informed that the Report
of the Expert Group by Shri N.C. Saxena had been discussed by a smaller Expert
Group and it was recommended that there should be a pre testing. During the BPL
Census conducted earlier in 1992, 1997 and 2002 no study on the feasibility aspect
of the implementation of criteria was carried out. However, for the forthcoming BPL
Census, the Ministry of Rural Development has decided to conduct a pilot study to
arrive on the methodology. The Ministry of Rural Development propose to address
the problem of errors in inclusion/exclusion of poor in the estimation of below the
poverty line category by conducting a pilot to test the methodology for the
forthcoming BPL Census. Pilot survey followed by Participation Rural Appraisal
(PRA) exercise would help in deciding most suitable parameters/methodology for
capturing poverty and thereby minimizing errors.

2.17 In the pilot survey, the Ministry would take recommendations of Dr.
N.C. Saxena led Expert Group as reference point and various other parameters
suggested by States/UTs and experts to arrive at most suitable methodology. The

32
pilot would be conducted in around 260 villages, selected from list of sample villages
of NSSO for 66th round, of almost all the States. A PRA exercise to corroborate the
results of pilot survey will also be carried out.

2.18 When the Committee pointed out that there was delay in conducting
next BPL Census, the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, while tendering
evidence on 31.5.2010, stated as below:
―We will start the BPL census in the year 2011, that is, as soon as the
main census 2011 is concluded. One novel feature in this is that we have
tied up with the Unique Identity Authority, and we are also having a
census together with them so that the exercise is not repeated and every
BPL person in the rural area is able to have a UID number straightaway.
Another feature in it is that we propose to use the households listed by the
census operations, so that we do not have to repeat the exercise.
However, there is a debate going on as to what should be the definition of
the household that should be taken, namely, whether it should be the
census household or whether it should be a further nuclear household. We
will be able to conclude it only when we have seen the results of the pre-
testing. This is in summary the measures that we have taken, and we are
open to guidance from this hon. Committee.‖

2.19 The Chief Economic Adviser, Department of Rural Development,

informed the Committee further about the initiative taken to start the process of BPL
census for the Eleventh five year plan during the evidence held on 29 September,
2010:

―The BPL pilot survey is at a very advanced stage right now. It has
already been completed in most of the States. We hope that by the
end of next week or so, most of the States would have completed the
survey. There is a different methodology now. It is called the Rural
People‘s Participation Appraisal. So, that is the alternative method
which has evolved very recently, particularly for doing this kind of a
survey. That is very useful. So, we want to corroborate whatever the
findings are there on the basis of the survey by this methodology.‖

2.20 In response to a query of the Committee that whether the identified

number of families after BPL census could be at variance with that of the estimate
given by Tendulkar Committee, a representative of the Department of Rural
Development, stated following, during the course of oral evidence:

33
 ―You are absolutely right that this 37.2 per cent is somewhat applicable
and not applicable, but the Ministry of Rural Development is saying
that because Tendulkar was requested to suggest the methodology
based on the consumption pattern and they have come up with the
figure of 37.2 per cent for 2004-05. Right now, the Ministry of Rural
Development is trying to do for 2010. You are absolutely right that the
figure that they would come up with after the pilot survey could be
different.‖

(iii) Proposed Food Security Act

2.21 Asked about the status of proposed Food Security Act and target
group, the Planning Commission, in their written submission, informed as under:
―The issue of proposed legislation on Food Security has been
referred to the Empowered Group of Ministers (EgoM) which has
discussed it during its meetings. The National Advisory Council
(NAC) is also examining the matter and final view will emerge after
the consultation process is completed. The decision on the
magnitude of population to be covered under the proposed
legislation has been one of the issues discussed by the EgoM.
There may be different approaches such as adopting a targeted
approach, or universalizing the food security keeping in view the
impact of food subsidy, availability of food grains stocks and
efficient public distribution system etc. For identification of targeted
beneficiaries under the proposed legislation, the Ministry of Rural
Development is working on finalizing the methodology for
identification of BPL households for the rural areas and the
Planning Commission has constituted an Expert Group under the
chairmanship of Prof S.R. Hashim for the urban areas. The Ministry
of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has already
circulated a concept note on the proposed legislation and also held
consultations with the State governments.‖

2.22 When the Committee invited attention of the Planning Commission to

the possible fallout of bringing Food Security Act based on a faulty criteria of
identification, the Ministry, in their post evidence replies shifted the responsibility to
the Department of Food and Public Distribution, stated as below:
―The food security law is not yet finalized. As and when it is firmed up,
the Government in the Department of Food and Public Distribution are
expected to address the issues of errors of inclusion and exclusion, to
avoid anomalies.‖

34
 C. Divergence between estimated and identified population Below
Poverty Line (BPL)

(i) Estimation of BPL

3.0 The Planning Commission‘s estimates of the poverty line are based on
monthly per capita consumption expenditure as the criterion, to determine the
persons living below the poverty line (BPL). The Commission has been following the
methodology suggested by the Expert Group on ‗Estimation of Number and
Proportion of Poor‘ (known as Lakdawala Committee Report) since 1997 and
worked out poverty estimates for the years 1973-74, 1977-78, 1983, 1987-88, 1993-
94, 2004-05.

3.1 The poverty ratio at the national level for the year 1993-94 and 2004-
05 are as given below:
Percentage and Number of Poor
Poverty Ratio (%) Number of Poor (million)
Year Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
1973-74 56.4 49.0 54.9 261.3 60.0 321.3
1977-78 53.1 45.2 51.3 264.3 64.6 328.9
1983 45.7 40.8 44.5 252.0 70.9 322.9
1987-88 39.1 38.2 38.9 231.9 75.2 307.1
1993-94 37.3 32.4 36.0 244.0 76.3 320.3
2004-05 28.3 25.7 27.5 220.9 80.8 301.7

(ii) Other Estimates of Poverty

3.2 Various agencies/ Committees have also indicated different estimates
of poverty based on different assumptions, perceptions and context. The National
Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) referred to as Arjun
Sengupta Committee brought out a report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of
Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector. In this report, it was brought out that 77% of
the population was with a per capita daily consumption of upto Rs 20 in 2004-05.
This section of the people was called poor and vulnerable. However, the Economic

35
Survey 2008-09, brought out that based on the calculations on data on household
consumption expenditure for 2004-05 (NSS 61st round-2004-05), the population with
less than Rs 20 per day per capita consumption expenditure was 60.5% only. In any
case, the above observation in the report of National Commission for Enterprises in
the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) is based on the criterion which is different from
the poverty line adopted by the Planning Commission. The Saxena Committee
which was constituted to recommend a suitable methodology for identification of
rural poor suggested assuming poverty ratio at national level as 50% merely relying
on the criteria of calorie intake. There has been a consistent decrease in the calorie
intake among all the sections of the society over the years. Therefore, merely relying
on the criteria of calorie intake for defining a poverty line is a debatable issue. The
World Bank poverty estimates of 41.6% are based on the world poverty line of $
1.25 per capita per day income at 2005 prices. The Tendulkar Committee which was
constituted by the Planning Commission to look into all these issues has
recommended to adopt a new Poverty Line Basket (PLB) and thus, redefined the
poverty line which gives the poverty ratio of 37.2% in 2004-05.

3.3 Commenting on the different estimates of poverty ratio suggested by

the Expert Group headed by Prof. Tendulkar, the Economic Survey, 2009-10 states
as below:
―It is, however, worth clarifying that the higher poverty estimates that
Tendulkar reports, compared to existing estimates of the Planning
Commission based on NSS data, do not reflect an increase in poverty,
but merely a changed definition of what constitutes poverty. As
calculations in a later chapter show, if we use the Tendulkar method to
calculate poverty in earlier years those rates go up as well compared
to standard estimates based on NSS data. Nevertheless, whether we
take India‘s poverty rate to be 37.2 per cent or 27.5 per cent (as is
implied by the 61st round of NSS data of 2004-05), it is easy to argue
that it is too high for a nation growing as rapidly as India, and that
special initiatives are needed to combat it.‖

3.4 Queried as to how different measurements of poverty were arrived at

by different institutions and reasons for lack of uniformity in estimates, the Ministry of
Planning, in their written reply, submitted as under:

36
 ―Planning Commission is the nodal agency in the Government of India
to release the Official Poverty Estimates. A time series estimates of
poverty since 1973-74 have been released by the Planning
Commission. The other agencies/Committees have indicated different
numbers based on different assumptions, perceptions and context. Till
now the official estimates released by Planning Commission have
been based on the methodology recommended by the Expert Group
(Lakdawala Committee). Now the Tendulkar Committee has given its
recommendations and once a decision is taken, there will be a uniform
methodology for estimation of poverty and there are no contradictions.‖

(iii) BPL population identified by the State Governments vis-à-vis

estimates of the Planning Commission
3.5 State Governments and Union Territories, who have furnished the
details of the total number of BPL population identified in the States/Union
Territories, in the last BPL census of 2002, vis-à-vis the Planning Commission
estimates, as shown in the table given below:
Total BPL population in the Total BPL population
State as on 1.3.2000 based identified in the State in the
on 1993-94 poverty BPL suryey conducted in
estimates of Planning the year 2002 (in lakh)
Commission and population
States estimates of Registrar
General of India as on
1.3.2000 (in lakh)
Jammu and Kashmir 7.36 37.78
Himachal Pradesh 5.14 23.54
Karnataka 31.29 98.41
Rajasthan 17.36 21.21
Madhya Pradesh 41.25 68.89*
Arunachal Pradesh 0.99 40.08
Bihar 65.23 113.41$
Kerala 10.25 20.50
Chattisgarh 18.75 34.50
Bihar 66.32 125.55
*The figures pertain to BPL survey carried out by State in 2001.
$ As furnished by the Ministry of Rural Development.

37
 3.6 The above table shows wide divergence in the total number of BPL
population from the estimates of Planning Commission. In reply to a query of the
Committee on reasons for divergence of estimates of Planning Commission and
those of State Governments, the Ministry of Planning, in their post evidence written
submission, stated as under:
―While the estimation of poverty is done by the Planning Commission
based on the poverty line defined by the Expert Group (Lakdawala
Committee), the Ministry of Rural Development identifies the BPL
households in the rural areas through the state governments and UT
administrations. The last BPL census to identify the rural BPL households
was conducted in 2002 and it is reported that the states and UTs have
identified 5.51 crore households as BPL in the rural areas. The estimation
of poverty and identification of BPL households are two separate
exercises‖.

3.7 The Planning Commission uses the poverty ratio of Assam for
estimating poverty in Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur,
Nagaland and Tripura. Poverty line of Maharashtra and expenditure distribution of
Goa is used to estimate poverty ratio of Goa. Poverty ratio of Tamil Nadu is used for
Pondicherry and Andaman and Nicobar island. Urban Poverty ratio of Punjab has
been used for both rural and urban poverty of Chandigarh. Poverty line of
Maharashtra and expenditure distribution of Dadra and Nagar Haveli is used to
estimate poverty ratio of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Poverty ratio of Goa is used for
Daman and Diu. Poverty ratio of Kerala is used for Lakshadweep. Annexure –I
shows the poverty ratio of various States estimated by the Planning Commission in
2004-05.
3.8 When the Committee pointed out the variation in estimates of poverty
in North Eastern States and desired to know the reasons for estimation done on the
basis of sample data of Assam, the Member Secretary, Planning Commission,
deposed before the Committee as follows:
―I will come to the point about Tripura and about other North Eastern
States depending on the data from Assam. The point about the
inadequacy and veracity or the correctness of statistics in our country
continues to be a tremendous problem.
Sir, as regards the North Eastern States, I have actually checked up
with my officers. They have to rely on Assam data because either the
data is not available or the sample size of the NSSO is so small as to

38
 be virtually unusable. It is not statistically significant, and it is here I
want to start at the last issue about the applicability of Assam data to
eight States. Sir, in fact to any reasonable person‘s mind, this is not the
really correct thing to do.‖

3.9 While questioning the authenticity of poverty estimates of Planning

Commission in some of the States, Expert Group headed by Shri N.C. Saxena have
also made following observation:

―Planning Commission‘s poverty estimates for Assam, Andhra Pradesh

and J&K seem to be lower than what their figures are on other related
indicators, such as malnutrition, Body Mass Index (BMI) and per capita
Net State Domestic Product (NSDP), whereas poverty estimates for
Uttarakhand seem to be on the higher side. For instance, per capita
NSDP for Uttarakhand in 2004-05 was Rs. 23,069, which was higher
than for West Bengal at Rs. 22,675. As incomes are better distributed
in Uttarakhand than in West Bengal, it is difficult to believe that poverty
there would be higher by eleven percentage points.‖

3.10 Asked to comment on the above, the Ministry of Planning, in their

written submission before the Committee, stated as under:

―It may be pointed out that the poverty line approach has its limitations.
Even the report of the Expert Group (Lakdawala) accepts it and
acknowledged that the poverty line is not a true indicator of
malnourishment which it might be mistaken for. It also acknowledges
that the poverty line may not capture important aspects of poverty such
as ill health, low educational attainments, geographical isolation,
powerlessness in civil society, caste or gender based disadvantages
and so on. Furthermore, the per capita NSDP may not truly represent
the incidence of poverty in a state.‖

3.11 In a memorandum, submitted by Dr. Himanshu, the problem of

divergence in poverty estimates has been explained as under:

―Large number of secondary data analysis suggests huge errors of

inclusion (wrong beneficiaries included) and errors of exclusion
(genuine beneficiaries excluded) in the BPL population ascertained as
per the existing methodology.
The discrepancy is because poverty estimates of Planning
Commission are used by converting into households. Due to
conversion of percentage of population to percentage of households,
loss of households occur. The difference is largely because of the

39
 interpretation of household which is different in the case of secondary
data but is different for operational purposes.
Cross check with secondary data (National Sample Survey/National
Family Health Survey/District Level Household and Facility Survey)
suggest that majority of exclusion/inclusion errors are attributable to
implementation problems and not so much because of design
problems. However there are some design problems which need to be
improved.‖

3.12 When asked whether economic census will be more effective in better
projection of poverty in the Country, the Ministry, in their written submission, stated
as under:

―Poverty is generally considered a multi dimensional problem as the

poor suffer from a variety of deprivations. However, consumption
expenditure is considered a better indicator to capture poverty as
compared to income or other criteria primarily because consumption
expenditure data reflects accurately people‘s level of living whereas
income data are more concerned with people‘s potential level of living.
Moreover, the expenditure data are considered more reliable than
income data.‖

40
D. Implementation of Welfare Schemes for the Poor

4.0 At present 139 Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) with a total outlay
of Rs. 157051.40 crore are being operated, out of which three schemes are being
operated by the Ministry of Rural Development for directly benefiting the BPL in rural
areas. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation administers one
scheme, namely Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) for improving the
condition of urban BPL. The performance of these programmes since 2007-08 is as
given below:
PERFORMANCE OF MAJOR PROGRAMMES
(Rs. in Crores)
Swaranjayanti Indira Awaas National Swarna
Gram Yojana (IAY) Social Jayanti
Swarozgar – Ministry of Assistance Shahari
Yojana Rural Programme Rozgar
(SGSY) – Development (NSAP) – Yojana
Ministry of Ministry of (SJSRY) –
Rural Rural Ministry of
Development Development Housing and
Urban
Poverty
Alleviation
Eleven (06-07) 15740.53 23767.92 15691.00 1547.26
Plan
Project (Current 17803.00 26882.21 17746.98 1750.00

2007-08 BE 1800.00 4040.00 2407.00 344.00

Actuals 3882.00 2851.37* 341.00
2008-09 BE 2150.00 5400.00 3500.00 515.00
Actuals 8348.34 4442.24* 545.00
2009-10 BE 2350.00 8800.00 5200.00 515.00
Actuals 2350.00 8800.00 5109.24 428.69
2010-11 BE 2985.00 10000.00 5762.00 564.60

* For Andaman only

41
(i) Welfare Schemes for Rural Poor
4.1 The Ministry of Rural Development implements three programme for
the benefit of BPL Households. These are Swaranjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana
(SGSY) which is a self employment programme, Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY)
providing assistance to BPL households for housing and National Social Assistance
Programme (NSAP).

Swaranjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)

4.2 The Swarnjayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) is a major self

employment scheme launched in April, 1999 after restructuring and combining the
IRDP with allied programmes i.e. TRYSEM, DWCRA, SITRA, GKY, MWS. It was
designed as a holistic self employment scheme aimed at providing sustainable
income to rural BPL families through income generating assets / economic activities
so as to bring them out of the poverty line. It is a process oriented scheme involving
processes like organization of the rural poor (BPL) into Self-Help Groups (SHGs)
through social mobilization, capacity building & training, provision of revolving fund,
making available credit and subsidy, technology, infrastructure & marketing. Each
process has a bearing on the successive process.
4.3 SGSY aims at bringing the assisted poor families (swarozgaries)
above poverty line by providing them income generating – assets through a mix of
bank credit and government subsidy. Subsidy under the SGSY is given at the
uniform rate of 30% of the project cost, subject to a maximum of Rs.7500. In
respect of SC/STs and disabled however, these will be 50% and Rs.10,000/
respectively. For Groups of Swarozgaris (SHGs), the subsidy would be at 50% of
the cost of the scheme or per capita subsidy of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.1.25 lakh,
whichever is less. There will be no monetary limit on subsidy for irrigation projects.
Subsidy is back ended. The SGSY seeks to promote multiple credits rather than a
one – time credit injection. 15% outlay under SGSY is set apart for Special Projects
to field test and validate alternative strategies for livelihood opportunities and
enhancement of livelihood support for rural poor. Each Special Project is expected to
be executed in a time-bound manner for bringing a specific number of BPL families
above the poverty line through a projectised approach with the funding requirement

42
to be shared between centre and state, except for north eastern states, in the ratio of
75:25. The ratio of sharing of funds between Centre and north eastern states
including Sikkim is 90:10.

New initiatives proposed and future plans for strengthening of SGSY:

4.4 SGSY is being restructured as National Rural Livelihoods Mission

(NRLM) to implement it in a mission mode for targeted and time bound delivery of
results. NRLM recognizes that the poor people have the potential to come out of
poverty with proper landholding, training and capacity building and credit linkage.
NRLM also recognizes that poor people have multiple livelihoods – wage
employment and self employment. It will stabilize and enhance incomes from both
the livelihoods. It will also promote diversification of livelihoods. NRLM will have
special focus on the poorest households, who are currently dependant on
MSNREGA. The main features of NRLM are as follows:
Universal social mobilisation through formation of SHGs under NRLM. To
bring each and every BPL household under the SHG network.
To take the social mobilization process to the next stage of maturity SHG
federations will be set up at the levels of villages, cluster of villages, blocks &
districts.
The goal of universal financial inclusion will be furthered by enabling SHGs to
be linked to banks and to access credit from them.
Under NRLM it is proposed that upto Rs. 7500 per beneficiary would be
provided for capacity building & training in place of the present provision of
Rs. 5000 per beneficiary.
In order to ensure institutional arrangement for skill development for self
employment and wage employment, dedicated training institute for rural BPL
youth i.e Rural Self Employment Training Institutes (RSETIs) are being set up
with the aim of having at least one such institution in each district of the
country.
Under NRLM, interest subsidy will be provided to SHGs for prompt repayment
of loans to banks. The difference between 7% and Prime Lending Rates

43
 (PLR), will be provided to the poor households for every loan accessed from
the banks, up to a limit of Rs 1 lakh per household.
It is proposed to provide flexibility to the States for formulating their own
poverty alleviation plans on the basis of available resources and skills.
It is now proposed to make special projects as a subset of NRLM and
earmarking 20% of allocation for special projects.
Presently evaluation of SGSY is done by commissioning studies through
NIRD and other reputed organizations and the programme is monitored
through online Monthly Progress Report, regular meetings of the Performance
Review Committee, visit by Area Officers and the mechanism of DLMs
(District Level Monitors), NLMs (National Level Monitors) etc. In addition to
these, NRLM will put in place a (i) a comprehensive MIS encompassing
database of SHG profiles, federations, training institutions and activities,
placements of trained beneficiaries, marketing of products etc., (ii), concurrent
and mid-term evaluations, (iii) social accountability practices like social audits
etc. to facilitate monitoring & bring in transparency in program
implementation.
A mission approach will enable time bound achievement of the goals of
N.R.L.M.
NRLM will have partnerships with:
a) Civil Society Organizations
b) Industries
c) Educational Institutions
d) Other resource organizations.

Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY)

4.5 With a view to meeting the housing needs of the rural poor, Indira
Awaas Yojana (IAY) was launched in May 1985 as a sub-scheme of Jawahar
Rozgar Yojana. It is being implemented as an independent scheme since 1 January
1996. The Indira Awaas Yojana aims at helping rural people below the poverty-line
belonging to SCs/STs, freed bonded laboureres and non-SC/ST categories in

44
construction of dwelling units and up gradation of existing unserviceable kutch
houses by providing grant-in-aid.
Under IAY, a rural Below Poverty Line(BPL) family is given grant of Rs. 45000/-
in plain areas and Rs.48,500/- in hilly/difficult areas for construction of a house.
IAY houses have also been included under the Differential Rate of Interest (DRI)
scheme for lending by Nationalized Banks upto Rs.20,000/- per unit at an
interest rate of 4% in addition to financial assistance provided under IAY.

The criteria for allocation of IAY funds to the States & UTs involves assigning
75% weightage to housing shortage and 25% to poverty ratio. The allocation
amongst districts is based on 75% weightage to housing shortage and 25%
weightage to SC/ST component.
In order to introduce transparency in selection of beneficiaries permanent IAY
waitlists have to be prepared gram panchayat wise by the States/UTs. These
lists contain the name of deserving BPL families who need IAY houses in order
of their poverty status based on the BPL list 2002.
Necessary instructions have been issued to all the DRDAs regarding
Convergence of various Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) with IAY. IAY
beneficiaries can get the benefits available under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen
Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY), Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), Janshree and
Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana and Differential Rate of Interest (DRI) Scheme etc.

Homestead Site Scheme:

4.6 As per Ministry‘s estimates, there are 7.7. million rural BPL households
who do not have a house site in the country. For the poorest of the poor who are
landless and do not have house-sites, the Government has approved a scheme as
part of IAY for providing homestead sites to those rural BPL households whose
names are included in the Permanent IAY Waitlists but do not have a house site.
Rs.10,000/- per homestead site is being provided under the Scheme and the funding
of which is shared by the Centre and the States in the ratio of 50:50. Funds
amounting to Rs. 157.47 crores have since been released to five States namely,
Kerala, Karnataka, Rajasthan , Sikkim, and Bihar. As an incentive, Rs. 43.51 crore

45
have been released to the Govt. of Gujarat for construction of additional 33154
houses under IAY.

National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP)

4.7 National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) was introduced in

1995 as a Centrally Sponsored Programme but was subsequently transferred to
State Plan w.e.f. 2002-03. NSAP aims at ensuring minimum national standards in
addition to the benefits that the States are providing or would provide in future.
4.8 At present, NSAP consists of five schemes namely Indira Gandhi
National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS), Indira Gandhi National Widow
Pension Scheme (IGNWPS), Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme
(IGNDPS), National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS) and Annapurna.
4.9 The funds for NSAP are allocated by Planning Commission and are
released as Additional Central Assistance (ACA) by the Ministry of Finance in a
combined manner for all the five schemes under NSAP together, on the
recommendation of the Ministry of Rural Development.
Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS)
4.10 Pension under IGNOAPS is provided to a person of 65 years or higher
and belonging to a household living below the poverty line according to the criteria
prescribed by the Government of India. The number of beneficiaries covered at
present are 163 lakhs. Central Assistance of Rs.200 per month per beneficiary is
being provided and States have been requested to contribute another Rs.200 from
their own resources so that a destitute pensioner could get at least Rs.400 per
month. Presently 18 States are contributing on their own Rs.200 or more per person
per month, 11 States are contributing less than Rs.200.
Introduction of IGNWPS and IGNDPS
4.11 NSAP was expanded in February 2009 by addition of two new pension
schemes for BPL Widows (40-64 yrs) and persons with severe or multiple disability
(18-64 yrs). 45 lakh beneficiaries are estimated to be covered under IGNWPS and
15 lakh beneficiaries are estimated to be covered under IGNDPS. States have
reported coverage of 31 lakh under IGNWPS and 7 lakh beneficiaries under
IGNDPS till date.

46
National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS)
4.12 Under NBFS a grant of Rs. 10,000 in case of death of ―Primary
breadwinner‖ is provided to the bereaved household. The primary breadwinner as
specified in the scheme, whether male or female, had to be a member of the
household whose earning contributed substantially to the total household income.
The death of such a primary breadwinner occurring whilst he or she was in the age
group of 18 to 64 years i.e., more than 18 years of age and less than 65 years of
age, made the family eligible to receive grants under the scheme.

Annapurna Scheme

4.13 Annapurna Scheme was introduced in April 2000 for persons not
covered under Old Age Pension Scheme. Under Annapurna Scheme 10 Kg. of food
grains per month is provided free of cost. The total number of Annapurna
beneficiaries was estimated as 20% of the persons eligible to receive old age
pension under the then National Old Age Pension Scheme ( NOAPS).

(ii) Welfare Scheme for Urban poor

Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY)

4.14 The Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation is implementing

an employment oriented urban poverty alleviation centrally sponsored scheme
named Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) since 1.12.1997. The
scheme aims to provide gainful employment to the urban poor by assisting them to
set up individual/group enterprises as well as utilising their labour for the
construction of socially useful public assets. The scheme has been comprehensively
revamped by the Government, with effect from 1st April 2009. The revamped SJSRY
has following components:
(i). Urban Self Employment Programme (USEP) - targets individual urban
poor for setting up of micro-enterprises.
(ii). Urban Women Self-help Programme (UWSP) - targets urban poor
women self-help groups for setting up of group-enterprises and

47
 providing them assistance through a revolving fund for thrift & credit
activities.
(iii). Skill Training for Employment Promotion amongst Urban Poor (STEP-
UP)-targets urban poor for imparting quality training so as to enhance
their employability for self-employment or better salaried employment.
(iv). Urban Wage Employment Programme (UWEP)- seeks to assist
urban poor living in towns having population less than 5 lakhs as per
1991 census, by utilizing their labour for the construction of socially
and economically useful public assets.
(v). Urban Community Development Network (UCDN) - seeks to assist
the urban poor in organizing themselves in self- managed community
structures so as to gain collective strength to address the poverty
related issues facing them and to participate in the effective
implementation of urban poverty alleviation programmes.

(iii) Public Distribution System (PDS)

4.15 As stated earlier BPL surveys are primarily used for public Distribution
System. PDS evolved as a major instrument of the Government‘s economic policy
for ensuring availability of foodgrains to the public at affordable prices as well as for
enhancing the food security for the poor. It is an important constituent of the strategy
for poverty eradication and is intended to serve as a safety net for the poor whose
number is more than 330 million and are nutritionally at risk. PDS with a network of
about 4.99 lakh Fair Price Shops (FPS) is perhaps the largest distribution network of
its type in the world. PDS, with its focus on distribution of food grains in urban
scarcity areas, had emanated from the critical food shortages of 1960. PDS had
substantially contributed to the containment of rise in food grains prices and ensured
access of food to urban consumers. As the national agricultural production had
grown in the aftermath of Green Revolution, the outreach of PDS was extended to
tribal blocks and areas of high incidence of poverty in the 1970s and 1980s.

4.16 PDS is operated under the joint responsibility of the Central and the
State Governments. The Central Government has taken the responsibility for

48
procurement, storage, transportation and bulk allocation of foodgrains, etc. The
responsibility for distributing the same to the consumers through the network of Fair
Price Shops (FPSs) rests with the State Governments. The operational
responsibilities including allocation within the State, identification of families below
poverty line, issue of ration cards, supervision and monitoring the functioning of
FPSs rest with the State Governments.

4.17 Under the PDS, presently the commodities namely wheat, rice, sugar
and kerosene, are being allocated to the States/UTs for distribution. Some
States/UTs also distribute additional items of mass consumption through the PDS
outlets such as cloth, exercise books, pulses, salt and tea, etc.

4.18 PDS, till 1992, was a general entitlement scheme for all consumers
without any specific target. Revamped Public Distribution System (RPDS) was
launched in June 1992 in 1775 blocks throughout the country. The Targeted Public
Distribution System (TPDS) was introduced with effect from June 1997.

4.18 The scheme, when introduced, was intended to benefit about 6 crore
poor families for whom a quantity of about 72 lakh tonnes of food grains was
earmarked annually. The identification of the poor under the scheme is done by the
States as per State-wise poverty estimates of the Planning Commission for 1993-
94 based on the methodology of the ―Expert Group on estimation of proportion and
number of poor‖ chaired by Late Prof Lakdawala. The allocation of food grains to the
States/UTs was made on the basis of average consumption in the past i.e. average
annual off-take of food grains under the PDS during the past ten years at the time of
introduction of TPDS.

4.20 The quantum of food grains in excess of the requirement of BPL

families was provided to the State as ‗transitory allocation‘ for which a quantum of
103 lakh tonnes of food grains was earmarked annually. Over and above the TPDS
allocation, additional allocation to States was also given. The transitory allocation
was intended for continuation of benefit of subsidized food grains to the population
Above the Poverty Line (APL) as any sudden withdrawal of benefits existing under

49
PDS from them was not considered desirable. The transitory allocation was issued
at prices, which were subsidized but were higher than the prices for the BPL quota
of food grains.
4.21 While discussing the main challenges of poverty, Economic Survey,
2009-10 has offered good exposition of the problems in Public Distribution System
and also suggested ways to tackle them so as to better target the subsidies, as
given below:
―Through a vast network of public distribution system (PDS) outlets across
the nation, we try to deliver some minimal supplies of heavily subsidized
grain to our below poverty line (BPL) households and also some to our
above poverty line (APL) households. The PDS stores are first given this
subsidized grain and then instructed to deliver it at below market price to
these specified households. It is believed many of these storekeepers (i)
sell off this subsidized grain on the open market, and (ii) then adulterate
the remaining grain and sell the diluted product to the BPL and APL
households, who have no choice in the matter. We may harangue about
the dishonesty of PDS store-keepers and all those entrusted with
delivering the subsidies. It is indeed true that personal integrity, honesty
and trustworthiness in the citizenry are vital ingredients for a nation‘s
economic progress—there is enough cross country evidence of this. But
when crafting policy, there is need to be realistic about the system within
which we work. To assume that all those entrusted with the task of
administering the programme will do so flawlessly and then to blame them
when the system fails, is not the mark of a good policy strategist. For
effective policy, what is needed is to take people to be the way they are
and then craft incentive-compatible interventions.
This paragraph outlines an altered system that, once in place, will be no
more costly to run than the existing one and is likely to be much more
effective. The plan suggested here is not novel and has been suggested
on occasion by Indian policymakers and even in Budget documents.
However, it has never been fully spelled out. The two planks of this
system are (i) the subsidy should be handed over directly to the
households, instead of giving it to the PDS store-keeper in the form of
cheap grain and then have him deliver it to the needy households and (ii)
the household should be given the freedom to choose which store it buys
the food from. Suppose the BPL household gets a net subsidy of Rs x for
wheat each month. Instead of giving this by charging the household less
than the market price for wheat, it should be given coupons worth Rs x,
which can be used at PDS stores in lieu of money when buying wheat.
Under this new system no grain will be given at a subsidized rate to the
PDS stores and they will be free to charge the market price when selling
grain irrespective of who the customer is. The only change is that the PDS
stores are now allowed to accept these coupons which they can then take
to the local bank and change to money, and the banks, in turn, can go to

50
 the government and have them changed to money. Further, households
that get these coupons should be allowed to go to any PDS store of their
choice.‖

(iv) Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY)

4.22 In order to make Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) more

focused and targeted towards this category of population, the ―Antyodaya Anna
Yojana‖ (AAY) was launched in December, 2000 for one crore poorest of the poor
families. AAY contemplates identification of one crore poorest of the poor families
from amongst the BPL families covered under TPDS within the States and providing
them foodgrains at a highly subsidized rate of Rs.2/ per kg. for wheat and Rs. 3/ per
kg for rice. The States/UTs are required to bear the distribution cost, including
margin to dealers and retailers as well as the transportation cost. Thus the entire
food subsidy is being passed on to the consumers under the scheme.

4.23 The scale of issue that was initially 25 kg per family per month has
been increased to 35 kg per family per month with effect from 1st April, 2002. The
AAY Scheme has been expanded in 2003-2004 by adding another 50 lakh
households from amongst the BPL families. The Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) has
further been expanded with effect from 1st August, 2004 by another 50 lakh BPL
families by including, inter-alia, all households at the risk of hunger.

Identification Of Antyodaya Families And Allocation of Foodgrains:

4.24 The identification of the Antyodaya families and issuing of distinctive

Ration Cards to these families is the responsibility of the concerned State
Governments. Detailed guidelines were issued to the States/UTs for identification of
the Antyodaya families under the AAY and additional Antyodaya families under the
expanded AAY, which are stated below:

Landless agriculture labourers, marginal farmers, rural artisans/craftsmen

such as potters, tanners, weavers, blacksmiths, carpenters, slum dwellers,
and persons earning their livelihood on daily basis in the informal sector like
porters, coolies, rickshaw pullers, hand cart pullers, fruit and flower sellers,

51
 snake charmers, rag pickers, cobblers, destitutes and other similar categories
in both rural and urban areas.
Households headed by widows or terminally ill persons/disabled
persons/persons aged 60 years or more with no assured means of
subsistence or societal support.
Widows or terminally ill persons or disabled persons or persons aged 60
years or more or single women or single men with no family or societal
support or assured means of subsistence.
All primitive tribal households.

4.25 Allocation of food grains under the scheme is being released to the
States/UTs on the basis of issue of distinctive AAY Ration Cards to the identified
Antyodaya families. The present monthly allocation of food grains under AAY is
around 8.50 lakh tons per month. As announced in the Union Budget 2005-06, the
AAY has further been expanded to cover another 50 lakh BPL households thus
increasing its overage to 2.5 crore households.

(v) National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)

4.26 The NRHM was launched in 2005 to provide accessible, affordable
and accountable quality health services to rural areas with emphasis on poor
persons and remote areas. It is being operationalized throughout the country, with
special focus on 18 states, which include eight Empowered Action Group States
(Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand,
Orissa and Rajasthan), the eight north-eastern States, Himachal Pradesh and
Jammu & Kashmir. Among major innovations of the NRHM are the creation of a
cadre of Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA) and improved hospital care,
decentralization at district level to improve intra and inter-sectoral convergence and
effective utilization of resources through PRIs, NGOs and the community in general.
The Mission, in a sector-wide approach addressing sanitation and hygiene, nutrition
and safe drinking water as basic determinants of good health seeks greater
convergence among the related social-sector departments, i.e. AYUSH, Women and
Child Development, Sanitation, Elementary Education, Panchayati Raj and Rural

52
Development. The programme has been able to put in place about 8.10 lakh
community health workers i.e. ASHAs at village level, across the country. They have
contributed in a major way to improve utilisation of health facilities and increase
health awareness. Large number of medical and paramedical staff has been taken
on contract to meet the human resources shortages. During the year 2009-10, about
2475 MBBS doctors, 160 specialists, 7136 ANMs, 2847 staff nurses, 2368 AYUSH
doctors and 2184 AYUSH paramedics were appointed. Further, out of 1,45,894 Sub-
centres functioning across the country, 1,38,119 are having at least one ANM.
40,730 sub-centres are having second ANM also. 8341 Primary health Centres are
functioning 24 X 7 basis as on 30th June 2010 as against 1263 Primary health
Centres at the initial year of the NRHM (2005).

4.27 The CAG report had examined the implementation of NRHM during the
period from 2005-06 to 2007-08. CAG looked into the various aspects of the
programme viz. planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation procedures
from village level to Centre level, community participation in planning, convergence
with other departments, health spending, capacity building and strengthening of
physical and human infrastructure, procurement and supply of equipments, drugs
and services, health awareness issues through Information, Education and
Communication (IEC) activities and performance indicators for reproductive and
child healthcare and disease control programmes. Besides recommendations to
overcome the shortcomings in implementing NRHM, CAG Report had also brought
out some positive findings in terms of completion of district as well as block level
computerization of health facilities in 13 States/UTs, Rogi Kalyan Samitis formed at
every health centre in 10 States, constitution of Village Health and Sanitation
Committees in all villages of 5 states, the increased patient in flow at PHCs and
CHCs and improved institutional deliveries and immunisation efforts.

(vi) Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

(MGNREGA)
4.28 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA) is meant for the enhancement of livelihood security of the households
in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed

53
wage employment in every financial year to every rural household whose adult
members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The vision of MGNREGA is that no
vulnerable household in rural India goes hungry due to lack of income earning
opportunities. One of the basic entitlements under MGNREGA is employment within
15 days of application by anyone who demands employment (at any time of the
year), failing which s/he is eligible for an unemployment allowance. Therefore, under
the extant provisions of the Act, Planning Commission cannot put the condition to
the State Governments to implement MGNREGA during non agricultural season.
However, Section 27(1) of the Act provides that the Central Government may give
such directions as it may consider necessary to the State Governments for effective
implementation of the provisions of the Act.
(vii) Monitoring of Welfare Schemes
4.29 Asked, as to whether any survey/study/evaluation of the welfare
schemes have been done to assess their impact, the Ministry of Planning, in their
written replies, stated as under:
―During the course of the implementation of the scheme of Swarna Jayanti
Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY), an independent evaluation of the
scheme in 9 representative States/UTs was carried out in 2006-2007, by
an independent agency named M/s Access Development Services
Limited, New Delhi. Based on the outcome of the evaluation study as well
as suggestions received from the States/UTs and other stakeholders, the
scheme of SJSRY was comprehensively revised with effect from 2009-
2010.
The study by M/s Access Development Services Ltd. did not
address the issue of how many BPL were upgraded to APL. It focused on
the scheme parameters and problems faced in the implementation of the
scheme. However, the following conclusions of the evaluation study are
worth noting:
(i). In order to have better impact of the programme, a ―Mission
Mode‖ should be followed for SJSRY rather than a centrally
sponsored scheme.
(ii). More stringent beneficiary identification system for optimum
allocation of resources under the scheme.
(iii). Capacity building of local governmental bodies is recommended
for processes like monitoring and reporting of the scheme.
(iv). Focus should be on self-employment component of the scheme.

Similarly, the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) also conducts

evaluation studies of all the rural development programmes periodically
through independent Research Organizations located in various parts of

54
 the country. As per the MoRD, a view to assess the Impact of
Swarnjayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) on rural poor, Concurrent
Evaluation was conducted during 2001-02. One of the findings of the
study indicated that among the total Swarojgaris (individuals and Groups)
who reported income generated from their SGSY activities, at the National
Level 37.24 % of individual Swarojgaris and 15.09 % members of the Self
Help Groups (SHGs) crossed the poverty line through the assistance
provided to them in the form of subsidy and institutional credit.‖

4.30 On the issue of effective implementation of the Schemes to enable

their benefits reach the poor, the Ministry of Planning, in their post evidence written
submission, informed the Committee as under:
―The Planning Commission and also the Ministry of Panchayati Raj has
been emphasizing the need to empower the local bodies for effective
implementation of schemes including the Central and Centrally Sponsored
Schemes. As per the provisions of the Constitution, the decision for the
extent of empowerment of the local bodies is to be taken by the State
Governments. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj is making all the necessary
efforts to persuade the State Governments to take necessary action in this
regard.‖

4.31 Besides shortcomings of the existing criteria for identification of poor,

certain implementation problems have been highlighted in the written memorandum
submitted by Dr. Himanshu, stated as below:

―Implementation is done by State Government using village level

Officials
Since the criteria is known it introduces a bias among the
respondents
But even otherwise, due to local situations, it is prone to elite
capture
The victim/loser in most cases are the poor
Weak redressal mechanism
Implementing agencies vary in their capacity from state to state.
Gram sabhas and panchayats are weak
Implementation also depends on the design of delivery
programmes which depend on the capacity of line departments and
-state governments‖

4.32 Member Secretary, Planning Commission, while deposing before the

Committee, also highlighted the problem of under utilization of funds of various
schemes, stated as below:

55
 ―The focus on allocations of money on the funds which are going, I crave
your indulgence to say that what is going is not getting spent well and
sometimes it not reaching also. It is not that it is getting embezzled on the
way, but it is getting blocked up on the way. Either the money is given
from the Centre to the State or from State it goes to the District and then
from District to the Intermediate Panchayats and Village Panchayats wait
to get the allocations. There is some delay in that. The Budget year is the
end loss. The next year, the release is dwindled because the opening
balance is very large or the money which is received only in the last week
of March is not spent. So, there are certain flow problems which can be
handled. These are not policy issues, but these are issues of mechanism
of ensuring that money reaches.‖

Poverty alleviation Programme in Brazil

4.33 Ensuring that every rupee reaches the person it is meant for, as
Brazil's popular cash-transfer scheme Bolsa Famila Programme (BFP) shows, can
strengthen India's fight against poverty. BFP transfers cash via banks to poor
Brazilian families on the condition that their children attend school and are
vaccinated. According to a World Bank study, BFP, which reaches 12.7 million
families, helped lift 20 million people out of poverty between 2003 and 2009. In that
time, poverty - based on a purchasing power parity of less than $2 a day - fell from
22% of Brazil's population to 7%. The income of Brazil's poor grew seven times
faster than that of the rich, and three times the national average. Inequality in the
country is now at a 30-year low. Brazil has 12.71 bank branches per 1,000 adults;
India has 10.11.

Study Tour of the Committee

4.34 During the recent study tour of the Committee to Mumbai discussions
were held with the representatives of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and
the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services) on the subject ‗Social
Insurance‘ on 31st January, 2011. In their deliberations the Committee found to their
dismay that the coverage of BPL households under social insurance schemes such
as Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana (AABY) was quite negligible and far from achieving the
BPL target.

56
 OBSERVATIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Despite six decades of planning, a plethora of schemes and

various measures initiated by successive Governments, it remains a stark

reality that large number of our people are forced to live in abject poverty. It is

disconcerting that we still have not yet arrived at a flawless and acceptable

poverty estimation formula, which has predictably resulted in large variations

of poverty estimates between the Planning Commission/Central Government

on the one hand and the States on the other, which again, may be at variance

with the actual incidence of poverty. Several States have questioned the

inconsistency in the criteria determined by the Planning Commission and

have termed it absurd, as it seeks to pre-determine state-wise poverty

according to certain normative criteria super imposed on the States. Such

mis-match and contradictions have inevitably resulted in wrong targeting of

different welfare schemes and consequent failure to achieve the objectives

envisaged. In the year 2008-09 alone, the actual expenditure incurred in

respect of centrally sponsored flagship schemes was to the tune of Rs.

126848.32 crore. It is obvious that the huge amount of anti-poverty funds

spent over the years have not yielded the desired and tangible results. This

obviously raises issues inter-alia about the role, mandate and functioning of

the Planning Commission and the efficacy of the planning process per se.

While not attempting a critique on the planning process as a whole at this

point, the Committee would like to emphasise in this Report, the key concern

areas relating to estimation of poverty, targeting of poverty alleviation

57
schemes and suggest ways to overcome the discrepancies, mis-match and

distortions that have crept in the system over the years.

2. Presently, incidence of poverty is estimated by the Planning

Commission on the basis of sample surveys of household consumer

expenditure conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO)

on a quinquennial basis. Accordingly, the estimates of poverty were worked

out for the years 1973-74, 1977-78, 1983, 1987-88, 1993-94, 1999-2000 and 2004-

05. The latest poverty estimates have been made for the year 2004-05 based

on the poverty line adopted at all-India level as Rs. 356.30 per capita per

month at 2004-05 prices for rural areas; and Rs. 538.60 per capita per month

for urban areas. On this basis, the percentage of population below poverty

line for rural, urban and all India during 2004-05 was estimated at 28.3%, 25.7%

and 27.5% respectively. While the estimation of poverty in the country is done

by the Planning Commission, the Ministry of Rural Development conducts the

Below Poverty Line (BPL) census to identify the BPL households in rural areas

which could be targeted under its various programmes. The Ministry of Rural

Development has thus been conducting BPL census every five years since

1992 to identify the BPL households in the rural areas. In the latest BPL

census conducted in 2002 by the Ministry of Rural Development, the States

were given the option to identify the number of BPL families equal to the

poverty estimates of 1999-2000 or the adjusted share worked out by the

Planning Commission, whichever was higher; an additional 10% was allowed

to account for the transient poor. However, no such census/survey has been

conducted by the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation for the

58
urban areas on the plea that it is very costly and that the size of urban poverty

alleviation programme handled by the Ministry had hitherto been very small.

3. During the course of examination of the subject by the

Committee, significant lacunae came into sharp focus such as multiple

indicators/criteria used for identification of the poor, divergence of official

estimates of poverty ratio with the actual incidence of poverty, no poverty

census in urban areas, use of different methodologies for estimation and

identification of BPL households, restricting the identification of poor in

States to the cap fixed by the Planning Commission, variation in estimates,

wrong-targeting of beneficiaries of welfare schemes etc. The Committee have

sought to address these issues in the succeeding paragraphs.

4. The issue of BPL criteria and identification of people „below the

poverty line‟ assumes significance in view of its crucial role in the efficacy and

functioning of the Public Distribution System (PDS) as also the identification

of beneficiaries of targeted poverty alleviation programmes and different

welfare schemes of the Government. The BPL Survey done by the Ministry of

Rural Development in 1992 used the income criterion to determine poverty.

This survey determined the poor using the family based income level of Rs.

11000 per year. However, the Committee note that in the next BPL census of

1997, the consumption criterion was adopted to identify the poor. Also, for the

first time, exclusion criterion was used to rule out ineligible families in the first

place. For the BPL census of 2002, the Ministry of Rural Development adopted

a methodology of score-based ranking of household, as suggested by an

Expert Group. In this process, thirteen socio-economic indicators were used

59
to identify the poor families. The Committee, however, find that while using

this criterion, errors of inclusion and exclusion in the BPL list far exceeded

acceptable limits. Serious discrepancies also came to the fore as a result of

the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Rural Development for the BPL Survey

of 2002 which stipulated a ceiling on the number of BPL households to be

identified, in order to be in conformity with the poverty estimates of the

Planning Commission. The Committee find it strange that the State

Governments were asked to select the poor households so that the total

percentage of such families did not exceed the limit already fixed by the

Planning Commission. Paradoxically, this was like “the feet being made to fit

the shoe”. As was to be expected, several States fixed their BPL number in

excess of the Planning Commission limit, while objecting to the cap imposed

by the Planning Commission. The fact that a large number of complaints were

received on this mis-match in poverty estimates and also that “a part of the

BPL population had been missed out” was conceded by the Secretary (Rural

Development) in his deposition before the Committee. In this connection, the

Committee were astonished to learn from the Secretary that there have been

specific findings that 86% of the APL population ended up in the BPL and

almost 17% of the richest quintile of the rural population were provided BPL

cards. The Committee are alarmed that such glaring inconsistencies,

distortions and irregularities have plagued the BPL enumeration process. It is

axiomatic that the criteria and estimates formulated by the Planning

Commission have proved to be inadequate, unrealistic and thus eluded proper

implementation at the State level. The Committee do not consider it prudent,

60
practical and fair that the Planning Commission should impose a ceiling or

limit on poverty to be strictly adhered to by the States. Such a top-down

approach can only yield the kind of distorted results evidenced so far.

5. With a view to ascertaining the extent of divergence in the BPL

estimates drawn by the Planning Commission with those identified by the

State Governments, the Committee requested the State Governments/UTs to

furnish the total number of BPL population identified in the States/UTs in the

last BPL Census of 2002. The Committee note with surprise that there is a

wide divergence between the aggregate estimates made by the Planning

Commission and those submitted by the State Governments. The divergence

is all the more glaring in respect of States like Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal

Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh. The

Committee are thus constrained to observe that the estimation of poverty and

the consequential identification of BPL households, which have been stated

as two separate exercises by the Planning Commission, do not seem to have

worked in tandem at the ground level. This has thus resulted in unacceptably

high level of divergence in many States, thereby defeating the very purpose of

estimation by the Planning Commission. The Committee would, therefore,

recommend that the Planning Commission should only confine itself to

formulating the indicative criteria for determination of BPL population, while

leaving the estimation and enumeration to a better- equipped machinery.

6. The Committee are given to understand that the Planning

Commission uses the poverty ratio of Assam (estimated at 19.73% in 2004-05)

for estimating poverty in seven States, namely, Sikkim (20.06% in 2004-05),

61
Arunachal Pradesh (17.60% in 2004-05), Meghalaya (18.52% in 2004-05),

Mizoram (12.62% in 2004-05), Manipur (17.34% in 2004-05), Nagaland (19.05%

in 2004-05) and Tripura (18.94% in 2004-05). According to the Member

Secretary, Planning Commission, they have to rely on Assam data because

the data for other States is either not available or the sample size of the NSSO

is so small as to be virtually unusable. The Committee find such a situation

unsatisfactory where accurate poverty estimates for North-eastern States are

not available at all. This raises serious questions about the adequacy and

veracity of poverty related statistics in the country. The Committee are

astonished that loose estimation is being done without undertaking proper

household survey. When the Ministry of Rural Development is conducting

household survey, there does not appear to be any need on the part of

Planning Commission to go for mere estimates, resulting in wastage of

resources. In the opinion of the Committee, such duplication of exercise,

added with the issues of divergence in approach and mis-match in

determining the incidence of poverty and the poor households are problem

areas that need to be addressed. The Committee would thus recommend that

a joint mechanism may be instituted for this purpose, comprising of all the

concerned Central Departments viz., Planning Commission, Ministry of Rural

Development, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, NSSO under

the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Registrar General of

Census under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Unique Identification Authority of

India (UIDAI) etc, the concerned state Government Departments including the

Panchayati Raj Institutions, for a joint and comprehensive poverty survey.

62
Since different wings of Government cannot be allowed to function at cross-

purposes and jeopardise the goal of poverty eradication, the proposed survey

in 2011 should thus be undertaken on a joint basis.

7. The Committee note that various Expert Groups/ agencies have

indicated different estimates of poverty based on different assumptions and

context. The Expert Group headed by Prof. Tendulkar, which was constituted

by the Planning Commission to review the methodology for poverty

estimation, suggested moving away from anchoring the poverty lines to the

calorie intake norm and incorporating the changing consumption patterns of

the people which would reflect more accurately their nutritional status. On the

basis of their proposed methodology, the all-India rural poverty head count

ratio for 2004-05 was estimated at 41.8%, urban poverty head count ratio at

25.7% and all India level at 37.2%. The Ministry of Rural Development

constituted an Expert Group in 2008 under the Chairmanship of Dr. N.C.

Saxena to advise them on the suitable methodology for conducting the BPL

Census for the Eleventh Five Year Plan. This Expert Group suggested that

„the percentage of people entitled to BPL status should be drastically revised

upwards to at least 50%, though the existing calorie norm of 2400 would

warrant this figure to be about 80%‟. This Group also suggested identification

of poor families according to „automatic exclusion and inclusion criteria‟. The

remaining households will be surveyed according to specified weightages.

The Economic Survey, 2008-09 had brought out that based on the calculations

of data on household consumption expenditure for 2004-05 (NSS 61st round

2004-05), the population with less than Rs. 20 per day per capita consumption

63
expenditure was 60.5%. The National Commission for Enterprises in the

Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) under the Chairmanship of Late Shri Arjun

Sengupta in their report on „conditions of work and promotion of livelihood in

the Unorganised Sector‟ estimated that 77% of the population had a per capita

daily consumption of upto Rs. 20 in 2004-05, which could be considered as

„poor and vulnerable‟. The proposed Survey/Census to be conducted by the

Ministry of Rural Development in 2011 may further produce different results.

The Committee are confounded at such a wide variation in the estimates of

poverty made by Expert Groups constituted by the Government based on

different sets of criteria. These facts only add credence to the emphasis

placed by the Committee on the need for harmonising the criteria for

identifying and enumerating the poor through a joint mechanism of the

concerned central, state and local agencies.

8. The Committee would also like to point out that the existing

poverty line approach has its inherent limitations and may not capture

important aspects of the real living conditions of the people. This is also

abundantly evident from the fact that though States like Assam, Andhra

Pradesh and J&K have a high malnourishment ratio, the poverty estimates of

these States, as per the Planning Commission‟s figures are much lower. This

leads us to the key question of appropriate criteria to estimate poverty and its

various facets. While economic growth and Government welfare programmes

have made some impact on the living standards of the people, conditions

relating to basic health, nutrition, education and social security have not

improved to the desired extent. The Committee cannot help expressing regret

64
over the fact that the criteria / approach recommended by various expert

groups set up from time to time for defining and determining „poverty‟ or

„poverty line‟ thus far have only left question marks and have failed in

capturing the actual incidence of poverty in the country. Important aspects

such as ill health, low educational attainments, geographical isolation,

powerlessness or dis-empowerment in civil society, caste or gender based

inherent disadvantages etc. remain to be conclusively captured in identifying

and enumerating the poor. The wide variation in determining the population of

the poor is illustrated by the fact that as per one of the expert groups

appointed recently, the BPL population in the country would be as much as

80% as per the existing calorie norm of 2,400, while as per another norm it is

only 37.2%.

9. The Committee are sanguine that the poverty ratio needs to be

estimated objectively and realistically and the criteria therefor should stretch

beyond the current norm which lays emphasis on calorific value and reflect

faithfully the changing nutritional profile and living status of the masses. The

Committee, therefore, recommend that the operational methodology for

identification of the poor should be based inter-alia on collectible information

covering aspects relating to access to primary health including the number of

illnesses of household members in a period of about a month which would

give an indicative account on the extent of economic burden of households

owing to poor health outcomes; level of indebtedness which often leads

households into destitution and the reasons therefor; ownership and type of

residence like kuccha, semi-pukka and pukka; proportion of total household

65
members to the total members engaged in economically productive

occupation or are self employed; schooling status of children along-with

number of working children in a household; and proportion of dependent

children and the elderly, which would indicate the extent of economic strain

on a household. Aspects relating to access to basic education, banking

channels and micro credit should be suitably factored in operationalising the

criteria for identification of the poor. The criteria may also provide for

automatic exclusion of specified categories like those (a) possessing irrigated

land double that of district average, (b) possessing two/four wheel

mechanised transport vehicle, (c) income tax payees, (d) residence in a pucca

house more than specified covered area, say 1,000 sq. ft., (e) house-holds with

at least one person holding pensionable job etc. Keeping in view such a

broader approach, the Committee feel that there need not be any specific

„automatic inclusion criteria‟. In the view of the Committee, it would thus be in

order to have a more comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to

determine poverty, which will also take into account dynamic aspects like

slipping back and forth across the poverty line as also issues relating to

empowerment of masses.

10. The Committee believe that poverty cannot be eliminated by

under-stating the figures or simply wishing away the problem. Government

programmes can be more effectively delivered if the multiple dimensions of

poverty are recognized and the criteria nuanced accordingly. The proposed

criteria for poverty estimation should thus be easily defined and measurable,

66
stable in the medium term and should also not become a disincentive for

progress.

11. As the special category of the „poorest of the poor‟ comprise a

vast chunk of the people, the Committee are of the view that we can make a

real dent on poverty only by paying special attention to this category by

devising and implementing focussed and exclusive schemes/programmes for

them. The Committee would, therefore, emphasise that a set of exclusive

criteria may be specially considered to identify „the poorest of the poor‟, so

that Government schemes and programmes particularly aimed at them

including the PDS are targeted in a fail-safe manner. Such a strategy

distinguishing the “poorest of the poor” from the general BPL will help ensure

that this particularly vulnerable category does not get marginalized in the

scheme of things. It will also help the Government devise and implement

exclusive programmes to address problems of endemic hunger, starvation,

acute malnourishment and agrarian distress. The Committee would therefore

recommend that schemes such as Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) with suitable

modifications, should be made universal for the „poorest of the poor‟, while

schemes such as NREGA should try to cover the BPL segment as well.

12. With a view to avoiding a rat race to be identified under BPL

category for availing benefits of Government schemes and programmes

including the PDS, the Committee would like the Government to encourage

more community-based schemes, whose benefits will accrue to the identified

communities/hamlets/villages as a whole. The mutual compatibilities amongst

the related schemes/ programmes, aimed at a common pool of beneficiaries,

67
will go a long way in minimizing their mis-use, while imparting credibility and

sustainability to the BPL identification process. The Committee would,

therefore, recommend that separate criteria may be formulated for community-

centric programmes focusing on villages having more than two-third BPL

population.

13. With a view to ensuring that every rupee reaches the person it is

meant for, the Committee would like the Government to examine direct cash-

transfer scheme as tried out successfully in large countries like Brazil. The

Committee gather that under their Bolsa Famila Programme (BFP) cash

transfers via banks to poor Brazilian families are made on the condition that

their children attend school and are vaccinated. According to a World Bank

Study, the BFP in Brazil helped lift 20 million people out of poverty between

2003 and 2009, as the income of Brazil‟s poor grew seven times faster than

that of the rich, and three times the national average. There are also

experiments such as that in Indonesia where even the entire village is

identified as „poor‟ for targeted action and the people are incentivised to come

out of the „poverty trap‟. The Committee desire that the Government should

evaluate such popular programmes successfully tried out in countries

similarly placed like ours with a large population of poor and the marginalized.

In this context, the Committee would like to emphasise that direct cash

transfers to bank accounts of beneficiaries will also facilitate the process of

„financial‟ inclusion‟ being attempted by the banking sector. Such a scheme

may also be integrated with the „Aadhar‟ project of the Unique Identification

(UID) programme to be implemented on a national scale, which will go a long

68
way in plugging the rampant leakages in the dissemination of benefits to the

poor.

14. The Committee would like to avail this opportunity to extend the

discourse and suggest that the plethora of schemes and programmes

obtaining now should be streamlined and rationalised to manageable

proportions. There is no reason why there should be a scheme seeking to

touch every aspect of human or livestock life. Such proliferation of schemes

eventually leads to slipping of „plan‟ expenditure to „non-plan‟ segment,

thereby slowing down the process of creation of capital infrastructure or

durable assets in rural areas. The Committee suggest that the Central

Government Schemes should focus on areas such as (i) rural roads (ii)

drinking water (iii) electricity (iv) irrigation (v) housing (vi) employment (vii)

health (viii) education (ix) agriculture and (x) small and cottage industries. It is

also necessary that the variety of schemes should be harmonized and

integrated within the ambit of a region-specific plan. This approach thus

requires that very detailed or schematic programmes should not be super-

imposed on the States and levels below. Such a decentralized yet holistic

approach will also ensure better utilization of earmarked funds under the

centrally sponsored programmes. In this context, the Committee would also

recommend multi-disciplinary monitoring of schemes simultaneously with

their implementation as well as post-facto.

15. During the course of their discussions with the representatives of

Life Insurance Corporation at Mumbai, the Committee found to their dismay

that the coverage of BPL households under social insurance schemes such as

69
Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana (AABY) was quite negligible and far from achieving the BPL

target. Considering the absolute number of poor in the country, social insurance

products/schemes of the Government seem to be now only „scratching at the

surface‟. The Committee would therefore recommend that schemes such as AABY

should be made universal so as to cover the entire BPL population within a pre-

stipulated period.

16. Keeping in view the need to revisit the methodology for identification of

urban poor, the Committee learn that the Planning Commission has constituted an

Expert Group recently to recommend suitable methodology for identification of BPL

families in urban areas under the Chairmanship of Prof. S.R. Hashim. While

estimating urban poverty, since it is necessary that incidence of rural-urban migration

is taken into account, the Committee would urge the Planning Commission and the

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation to include this aspect in the terms

of reference of the Expert Group, so that the rural-urban continuum is adequately

captured in the estimates.

17. The Committee regret that no survey has so far been conducted for

establishing head count of urban poor. This has thus rendered infructuous

formulation and implementation of urban poverty schemes, which are being operated

without any scientific basis. This has obviously resulted in low urban poverty ratio

and has also led to inconsistencies such as Jharkhand having only about 20 percent

urban poor as compared to a much higher ratio for a State like Bihar. While

deprecating the Government for delay and laxity in this matter, the Committee

would recommend that a household survey should also be conducted to

determine the extent of urban poverty.

70
 18. The Committee are also concerned about the efficacy of the

proposed Food Security Bill when the criteria of identification of the poor

remains nebulous. When this was pointed out to the Planning Commission,

they sought to shift the onus to the Department of Food and Public

Distribution, who are now expected to „address the issues of errors of

inclusion and exclusion to avoid anomalies‟. The Committee would thus urge

the Government to thrash out all the issues relating to poverty criteria,

estimation, identification and targeting before finalizing the Food Security Bill.

New Delhi; YASHWANT SINHA

15 March, 2011 Chairman,
24 Phalguna, 1932(Saka) Standing Committee on Finance.

71
 Minutes of the Nineteenth sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance

The Committee sat on Monday, the 31st May, 2010 from 1100 hrs. to 1720 hrs.

PRESENT

Shri Yashwant Sinha - Chairman

MEMBERS

LOK SABHA

2. Shri C.M. Chang

3. Shri Bhakta Charan Das
4. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta
5. Shri Khagen Das
6. Shri Nishikant Dubey
7. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
8. Shri Mangani Lal Mandal
9. Shri Rayapati Sambasiva Rao
10. Shri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
11. Dr. M. Thambidurai

RAJYA SABHA
12. Shri Raashid Alvi
13. Shri Vijay Jawaharlal Darda
14. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia
15. Shri Moinul Hassan
16. Shri S. Anbalagan
17. Dr. Mahendra Prasad

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri A.K. Singh - Joint Secretary

2. Shri T.G. Chandrasekhar - Additional Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan - Deputy Secretary
4. Smt. B. Visala - Deputy Secretary

Part I
(1100 to 1230 hrs.)
XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX

72
 Part II
(1245 to 1400 hrs.)
XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX

Part III
(1430 to 1720 hrs.)

WITNESSES

Ministry of Planning

1. Ms. Sudha Pillai, Member Secretary (Planning Commission)

2. Shri R.C. Srinivasan, Pr. Adviser
3. Shri B.D. Virdi, Adviser
4. Smt. Sibani Swain, Director

Ministry of Rural Development

1. Shri B.K. Sinha, Secretary (Rural Development)

2. Shri Manjula Krishnan, Chief Economic Adviser
3. Dr. N.K. Sahu, Director (Monitoring)

4. The Committee took oral evidence of the representatives of Ministry of Planning

and Ministry of Rural Development in connection with the examination of the subject,
‗Appraisal of BPL Criteria‘. Major issues discussed with the representatives included,
BPL criteria and practical problems in identification of people below the poverty line,
Expert Committees constituted on estimation of poverty and BPL households and the
methodologies recommended, variation in the estimates of poverty made by Planning
Commission (27.5%), Prof. Tendulkar Committee (37.2%), World Bank (42%), N.C.
Saxena Committee (50%), Arjun Sen Gupta Commission (77%) and the State
Governments, rationale of using the poverty ratio of a particular State for assessing the
poverty ratio of the adjoining States, particularly in the North Eastern region, necessity of
adopting uniform methodology on deriving the poverty estimates and estimating BPL
households, reliability of statistical data, etc. The Chairman directed the representatives
of the Ministries to furnish written replies to the queries raised by Members at an early

73
date. The Committee also decided to call for information relevant to the examination of
the subject from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations.

The witnesses then withdrew.

A verbatim record of proceedings was kept.
The Committee adjourned at 1720 hours.

74
 Minutes of the Twenty Second sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance

The Committee sat on Wednesday, the 14th July, 2010 from 1100 hrs. to 1630 hrs.

PRESENT
Shri Yashwant Sinha - Chairman

MEMBERS
LOK SABHA

2. Dr. Baliram (Lalganj)

3. Shri C.M. Chang
4. Shri Harishchandra Chavan
5. Shri Bhakta Charan Das
6. Shri Nishikant Dubey
7. Shri Bhatruhari Mahtab
8. Shri Mangani Lal Mandal
9. Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy
10. Shri Manicka Tagore
11. Shri Anjankumar M. Yadav

RAJYA SABHA
12. Shri Raashid Alvi
13. Shri S. S. Ahluwalia
14. Shri Moinul Hassan
15. Shri Mahendra Mohan
16. Dr. Mahendra Prasad
17. Shri Y.P. Trivedi

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri A.K. Singh - Joint Secretary

2. Shri T. G. Chandrasekhar - Additional Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan - Deputy Secretary
4. Smt. B. Visala - Deputy Secretary

Part I
(1100 to 1200 hrs.)
WITNESSES
Experts

1. Dr. Shubhasis Gangopadhyay, Research Director, India Development Foundation

2. Prof. M.R. Saluja, India Development Foundation

75
 3. Prof. Indrani Gupta, Instititute of Economic Growth

2. The Committee heard the views of the Experts on the subject ‗Appraisal of
BPL Criteria‘. The major issues discussed, related to poverty line, fixation of calorie
norms, limitations of Head Count Ratio (HCR) for measurement of poverty, imperfect
targeted programmes for poverty elimination due to theoretical and statistical issues, use
of additional indicators of indebtedness, ill health, sale of assets, demorgraphic and
economic compostion of households etc. for identification of poor, problem of temporary
migration of population, collection of reliable data etc. The Chairman directed the Experts
to furnish written replies to the queries raised by Members within 10 days.

The witnesses then withdrew.

A verbatim record of proceedings was kept.

Part II
(1300 to 1405 hrs.)
WITNESSES

Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation

1. Ms. Diran Dhingra, Secretary

2. Dr. P.K. Mohanty, Additional Secretary
3. Ms. Deepti Gaur Mukherjee, Director
4. Shri Mukul Chaturvedi, Director

The Committee heard the views of the representatives of the Ministry of Housing
& Urban Poverty Alleviation in connection with examination of the subject ‗Appraisal of
BPL Criteria‘. The major issues discussed with the representatives included, need for
enumeration of BPL in urban areas as a part of National Food Security Programme,
setting up of Hashim committee in May 2010 to identify urban poor, terms of reference of
this Committee, definition of ‗urban‘, Ministry‘s role in assessment of urban poor etc. The
Chairman directed the representatives to furnish written replies to the queries raised by
Members within a week.

The witnesses then withdrew.

A verbatim record of proceedings was kept.

76
 Part III
(1500 to 1630 hrs.)

XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX

The Committee then adjourned.

77
 Minutes of the Second sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance
The Committee sat on Wednesday, the 29 September, 2010 from 1400 hrs. to
1630 hrs.

PRESENT

Shri Yashwant Sinha - Chairman

MEMBERS

LOK SABHA

2. Dr. Baliram (Lalganj)

3. Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay
4. Shri Nishikant Dubey
5. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
6. Shri Mangani Lal Mandal
7. Shri N. Dharam Singh
8. Shri Manicka Tagore
9. Dr. M. Thambidurai
RAJYA SABHA
10. Shri S. S. Ahluwalia
11. Shri Raashid Alvi
12. Shri Moinul Hassan
13. Dr. Mahendra Prasad
14. Dr. K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao

SECRETARIAT
1. Shri A.K. Singh - Joint Secretary
2. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan - Deputy Secretary

WITNESSES

PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Ms. Sudha Pillai, Member Secretary, Planning Commission
2. Shri R.C. Srinivasan, Pr. Adviser, Planning Commission
3. Ms. Amita Sharma, Joint Secretary, (Deptt. of Rural Development)
4. Shri P.K. Padhy, Chief Economic Adviser, (Deptt. of Rural Development)

2. The Committee heard the views of the representatives of the Ministry of Planning in
connection with the examination of the subject ‗Appraisal of BPL Criteria and Impact of Planning
Process on the Common Man‘. Major issues which came up for discussion included reduction in
plan expenditure vis-à-vis increase in non plan expenditure over the years, underutilization of

78
funds provided through Centrally Sponsored Scheme, need for creation of more blocks and
panchayat samities, divergence in estimated number of BPL population and identified BPL
households in many States, public investment in agriculture, issue of migration of people from
rural areas etc. The Chairman directed the representatives to furnish written replies to the
queries raised by Members within a few days.

The witnesses then withdrew.

XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX
.

A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept

79
Minutes of the Fourteenth sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance (2010-11)

The Committee sat on Tuesday, the 15th March, 2011 from 1530 hrs to 1600 hrs.

PRESENT

Shri Yashwant Sinha – Chairman

MEMBERS

LOK SABHA

2. Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay

3. Shri Harishchandra Chavan
4. Shri Khagen Das
5. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta
6. Shri Nishikant Dubey
7. Shri Rayapati Sambasiva Rao
8. Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy
9. Shri G.M. Siddeshwara

RAJYA SABHA
10. Shri Raashid Alvi
11. Shri Piyush Goyal
12. Shri Satish Chandra Misra
13. Shri Mahendra Mohan
14. Dr. Mahendra Prasad
15. Shri Y.P. Trivedi

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri A. K. Singh – Joint Secretary

2. Shri T. G. Chandrasekhar – Additional Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan – Deputy Secretary

2. The Committee took up the draft Report on the ‗Appraisal of BPL Criteria‘ for
consideration and adoption.
3. The Committee deliberated upon the draft report and adopted the same with
minor modifications. The Committee also authorized the Chairman to present the same
to Parliament in the current session.

The Committee adjourned at 1600 hours.

80