| 
|
 |
The
development planning in India aimed at bringing the weaker section
of the society to the main stream of development. However,
the growth models adopted for development in first two decades of
planning which were based on 'trickle down' theory, could not provide
any relief to the downtrodden people. It is well proved by the recorded
population of 75% people living below poverty line in the year 1973-1974.
In order to overcome this situation Government of India brought
out specific programmes for the poorer section of society since
the inception of Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79). Concerted
efforts were made by Government of India for the eradication
of poverty. As a corollary to it, the first official announcement
of the Indian Poverty Line was made in the Rajya Sabha on December,
21, 1978 by the then Prime Minister.
The poverty line, as announced, was based on the rupee value of
a specified nutritional requirement. It was stipulated that the
calorie standard for a typical individual in rural areas was 2400
calories and 2100 calories in urban areas. Then the cost of the
grains that fulfil this normative standard was calculated. This
cost was the poverty line. In 1978, it was Rs. 71.30 and Rs. 61.80
per person per month for rural and urban areas respectively. Since
then, the Planning Commission recalculates the poverty line every
year adjusting it for inflation. In 1999-2000 the poverty line stood
at Rs. 454.00 and Rs. 328.00 in rural and urban areas respectively.
In a society where poverty is so pervasive and visible, the social
scientists, particularly economists come forward to understand the
nature and magnitude of poverty. In this regard the economists viewed
Planning Commission's Poverty Line merely as a 'Starvation Line'.
According to them food is not the only requirement of a human being.
Even in terms of nutrition, the estimates of the Planning Commission
are way off. According to a study conducted by the National Institute
of Nutrition, under the aegis of Indian Council of Medical Research,
the chief authority of nutritional standard in India, the typical
rural Indian requires 2900 calories and Indian urbanite require
2400 calories per day per head respectively. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission did not mention the minimum requirements of protein,
mineral or vitamins. Based on these analogies the Economists emphasized
upon stipulating the minimum needs that make up the basic standard
of living.
Such an approach - to define poverty in terms of basic needs-
was championed by Prof. Paul P. Streeten who defined 'Basic
Needs' as the core goods and services like education, health, nutrition,
sanitation and shelter, Other prominent economists, namely Frances
Stewart, Amartya Sen, Gerald Meier and many more, have contributed
to the theoretical question of "how to measure poverty?"
Amartya Sen's "Capabilities Approach" which measures poverty
as the capability to perform certain basic functions, has become
accepted in development theory. In the year 1976, the International
Labour Organisation had advised all the countries to adopt the basic
needs approach to measure poverty.
Government of India has been hampering upon income measure of poverty
till 1996. The inadequacies of an income measure of poverty are
apparent enough. The cut-off income was Rs. 6400.00 and Rs. 11,000.00
per year during the Seventh Plan (1985-90) and Eighth Plan (1992-97)
respectively. Quite apart from the problem of determining the level
of income that should constitute poverty, an income measure does
not capture many important features of economic and social deprivation.
It was only during the year 1997 that the Ministry of Rural Development
recommended to conduct a survey of families living below poverty
line on the basis of multiple criteria-qualitative parameters, like
housing condition, occupation, number of earning members in the
family and asset ownership. In the Tenth Five Year Plan Poverty
was viewed not only in terms of lack of income but as a state of
deprivation that prevents people from effective participation in
the development process. Good education, health, nutrition and low
fertility help reduce poverty by increasing the opportunities to
generate incomes.
Process
of Identification
With
a view to improving the Methodology for identification of BPL household,
in BPL census for Tenth Plan, the Ministry of Rural Development
had constituted an Expert Group, comprising administrators, academicians,
planner and representatives of the States of Assam, Kerala, Orissa,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The recommendations of
the expert group were accepted by Government of India and
the latter decided to adopt a normative approach for identifying
the rural poor by introducing a 'Score Based Ranking' on relative
deprivations revealed by certain socio-economic indicators in contrast
to 'income' and 'expenditure' approach adopted in the BPL census,
1992 and 1997 respectively.
The schedule to be adopted for BPL Census 2002 contains both scorable
and non-scorable indicators (Annexure-I). The indicators appearing
under the main block on Profile of Household are non-scorable and
have been included for the purpose of building up poverty profile
of the rural people. While information should be collected on all
the items under this main block, they are not to be used for assessing
the poverty status of the household. Thirteen scorable indicators
have been included in the schedule. A score (o,1,2,3,4) is to be
assigned to every household, in respect of each of these indicators.
The total score for each household is to be calculated. The families
scoring 39 or less marks were to be treated below poverty line and
families with the scores in between 40 and 52 would be treated as
above poverty line.
The government of India accepted the recommendations of the Expert
Committee and directed the State Governments through its circular
of 13th Sept. 2003 to identify the people living below poverty line
by 31st March, 2003. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, following
the circular of Central Government issued a circular to all the
District Magistrates for Completing the BPL list by 30th April,
2003. The on going process of identification of BPL families had
to be abruptly stopped. As per directives of the Hon. Supreme Court,
issued on 5th May, 2003 in the writ petition (No. 196 of 2001) filed
by People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) the results of
BPL Census-2002 could not be finalized. However, Ministry of Rural
Development, through its letter of 25th March, 2004 had advised
the State Governments to complete the spade work for the preparation
of the BPL list and subsequently to prepare tabulation plans for
the 13 indicators. However, for want of the updated list the state
governments have been expressing difficulty in implementing some
of the poverty alleviation programmes. Hence , based on the advice
of Additional Solicitor General, Government of India decided to
finalise the results of the BPL Census, 2002 without deleting the
BPL families already existing in the BPL list of BPL Census 1997.
Acting upon it Government of India issued revised directives on
10th October, 2005 to all the State Governments. Following these
directives the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Department of
Rural Development issued circular to all District Magistrates on
22nd November, 2005 to finalise the BPL list based on the BPL Census
2002, following all the earlier guidelines, and also to observe
the following points :
(a)
The BPL list of 2002 will be first prepared based on the BPL Census
2002. In addition, the list will also have at the bottom separately,
the details of all those families who were in the BPL list of 1997
but were getting excluded in the new list based on the BPL Census
2002. They will be placed in the order in which they are ranked
by the scorecard of the Census 2002.
(b)
This new list along with the scores and inter se ranking will be
displayed at the Panchayat Headquarters for a period of one month.
During this period, the list will also be placed before the Gram
Sabha for approval, if it had not been done earlier. The notice
for the meeting of the Gram Sabha will be publicly displayed and
also orally announced by the beating of drums well in advance of
the meeting. The meeting can also be attended by the village officials
namely, School Head Master, Anganwadi workers, Ward Panch, Patwari
and Gram Sevak. Ward Sabhas also will be held in addition to the
Gram Sabha, where it is statutorily required to do so. The photocopy
of the survey forms will be provided on demand to anybody to reveal
how the scores have been given.
(c)
The lists approved in the Gram Sabhas will continue to be displayed
at the Panchayat Headquarters till the completion of the final appeal
procedure at the District Collector's level.
Need
of the Study
The inordinate delay in the finalisation of the BPL List in BPL
Census, 2002 caused an uproar amongst the member organizations of
UPVAN. Consequently, two-day workshop was organized on 11th
and 12th May, 2004 at Lucknow. Majority of the members were of the
view that a PIL should be filed in Hon’ able High Court but
in view of PIL pending in the Hon’ able Supreme Court this
idea was deferred Instead it was decided upon to review the ground
level realities for such delaying process. It is in this background
that UPVAN undertook this study during the year 2005-06 under its
Advocacy Programme. This study was conducted with the following
objectives :
-
to
assess the gradual development of poverty line
indicators;
-
to
adjudge the infrastructure for BPL survey;
-
to
review the identification process of BPL list;
-
to
assess the Contribution of gram panchayats in the identification
process;
-
to
identify the factors hindering the process;
-
to
put forth suggestions for the easy and simplified process of
identifying the BPL list.
Method
of Study
The area of study was extended to the entire state. However, the
sampling technique was adopted. A sample of 39 districts out of
70 districts State of Uttar Pradesh, giving due weightage to four
agro-economic zones, was drawn. From the selected districts 441
Gram Panchayats were selected for detailed studies. The study was
conducted on survey method. The field work was carried out by the
82 Member organizations of UPVAN working at grassroot level in the
respective districts. The discussions with Gram Panchayat representatives
and Gram Sabha members were held by the experienced workers of member
organizations with the help of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) schedule-
a successful tool of P.R.A technique. Besides, discussions were
held with the officials and secondary data was also compiled from
the concerned channels of Gramya Vikas Vibhag of Uttar Pradesh..
Findings
of the Study
-
Thirteen
point indicators developed for the identification of BPL households
is misleading. Even district and block level officials were
not very much clear about it.
-
It
was imperative that for the successful identification of B.P.L.
families the villagers should have been taken into confidence.
The best course would have been to make the villagers aware
about the process of identification in a meeting of Gram Sabha,
specially Convened for this purpose and after compilation of
the BPL list, it should have been displayed at public place
in the village. The objections could have been invited and list
corrected accordingly. The study shows the reality at community
level as under :
-
Seventy
percent of the respondents flatly told that no such meeting
was convened in their area. Another seven percent respondents
expressed their ignorance about the Gram Sabha Meetings.
-
About
64.4 percent respondents were almost blank about the periodicity
of the survey.
-
About
82 percent respondents were totally ignorant about the display
of BPL list.
-
The
laid down 13 indicators for BPL identification were not kept
in view during survey period. Out of 157 respondents, expressing
their opinion about survey 51 percent respondents supported
this view. As regards the quality of survey, out of 157 respondents
127 (81%) treated it of poor quality. The reasons for the low
quality of survey, as told by the respondents, were lack of
people participation and parochial dealings of Gram Pradhans.
-
There was lack of
inter departmental coordination. The Panchayat Raj Department
was not associated with this survey work. Neither copies of
government orders/circulars, issued by Rural Development Department,
were endorsed to Director Panchayati Raj, nor District level
officers of Panchayati Raj Department were made a member of
district level verification and monitoring committees.
-
While working out
the survey plan it was not kept in view as to how the survey
work would be completed without adequate staff.
-
Supervision and monitoring
was not properly executed.
-
The minimum marks
assigned for declaring a family below poverty line have been
arbitrarily changed (27 from39).
-
The present election
system of PRIs. has disrupted the brotherly atmosphere
of the villages. The gram Pradhans even go out of way to help
the members of their resource group.
-
The period of survey
was also not appropriate. It was just after the 9th election
of PRIs. Some of the newly elected Gram Pradhans had not been
able to take the charge of gram Panchayats.
-
The social environment
has become so vitiated, as the man has become selfish. They
forget that they are usurping the rights of others. The members
Above Poverty Line try to present themselves Below Poverty Line.
Recommendations
The
dates for the publication of the final list of BPL families have
been slipping underneath. In the month of July 2006 it has been
changed for the Third time. Now 15th October 2006 is the last date
for the final publication of BPL list in Uttar Pradesh. Such a trend
compel us to think that probably the last date would always remain
shifting. On the basis of the findings of study following suggestions
are made for consideration of the Department in State Government
:
-
Responsibility
is for negligence to finalise the BPL list need to be
fixed and person concerned should be made accountable for lapses.
-
Fresh
time-bound survey is needed and for fresh survey with
pertinent points are needed as under :-
-
Widespread
publicity of the survey programme;
-
Simplified
indicators of BPL should be devised;
-
The
vacant positions of Block and village level officials
related to BPL programme, should be filled urgently;
-
The
Panchayati Raj Department should be closely associated
with this task. It has to exercise its control over Gram Panchayats;
-
The
unemployed graduates should be deployed for survey work. It
may not only justify their unemployment allowance but
the graduates engaged might also feel proud of being associated
with an onerous cause. Nevertheless, they should be paid travel
expenses, etc.
-
The
role of Gram Panchayat members should also be decided with regard
to BPL identification process.
-
BPL
and Antyodaya cards should be issued only after proper verification.
-
The
Gram Panchayats have the upper hand in the finalisation of the
BPL list. Hence all the Gram Panchayat representatives should
be mobilized and sensitized so that they could realize that
their honest dealings would help a great deal to their downtrodden
brethren.
-
The
role of Gram Panchayat members should also be decided with
regard to BPL identification process.
-
BPL
and Antyodaya cards should be issued only after proper verification.
-
The
Gram Panchayats have the upper hand in the finalisation of the
BPL list. Hence all the Gram Panchayat representatives should
be mobilized and sensitized so that they could realize that
their honest dealings would help a great deal to their downtrodden
brethren.
|