What's new

Real poverty statistics hidden by government of India?

Icewolf

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,503
Reaction score
-11
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Glance in any direction you care to look and it’s painfully obvious that immense and degrading poverty is still the norm for millions of Indians.

Poverty forces them to live like rats in sewers, to eat horrible food, to cope without running water, to suffer the horror of defecating in the open, to endure a squalor that haunts them from birth to death.


But India’s government was patting itself on the back recently, delighted, after a tidal wave of corruption scandals, to have some good news to announce: The number of India’s poor had shrunk dramatically.

The proportion of the population below the poverty line fell from 37.2 per cent in 2005 to 21.9 per cent in 2012, according to the latest government statistics. In seven years, the number plunged from 407 million to 259 million, a decline of 148 million.

It was all the more striking for being much sharper than a previously recorded drop, from 45.3 to 37.2 per cent between 1994 and 2005.

Spokesmen from the ruling Congress party grinned from ear to ear in televised studio debates, relieved to be able to boast about an achievement instead of having to defend yet another venal minister.

But the euphoria was ruined by two things: Some hardhearted remarks about the cost of food that betrayed Congress politicians’ contempt for the poor, and the realization that India’s definition of poverty is scandalously low.

First the Marie Antoinette remarks. At a briefing with news reporters, Congress parliamentarian Raj Babbar insisted that common folk could buy a meal in Mumbai for 12 rupees – about 20 cents. Not to be outdone, Congress colleague Rasheed Masood said five rupees would suffice in New Delhi.

Both men appear not to realize that the poor cannot afford milk, eggs or any but the cheapest of vegetables. Forget meat, fish or fruit – with the rampant food-price inflation India has been seeing for more than a year, they cannot afford onions at 20 rupees a kilo or even a tomato at 70 rupees to give a bit of flavour to a watery potato potage. To be clear, for 12 rupees, you cannot buy a plate of rice and lentils in either city.

This leads us to India’s official definition of poverty, which is based on the individual’s spending – only someone who spends less than 27 rupees a day in rural areas and 33 rupees a day in urban areas is counted as living in poverty.

These figures are mind-boggling. For 33 rupees, you can buy a few bananas and onions. On top of food, the average poor Indian still needs to pay for rent, clothes, medical expenses, school textbooks, transportation, electricity and cooking gas.

This definition seems to have been conjured up and calibrated by a misanthrope to ensure that it only just stops short of causing organ failure. It can hardly be called “living.”

In other words, the number of poor has fallen – but only because the definition of poverty is so disgracefully low. A government committee is currently studying the matter to see whether it needs revision.

“I look through the rubbish thrown out from rich homes to find some mango peel so that my child can know what a mango tastes like,” I was once told by a slum dweller who had never been able to buy the national fruit.

If she heard that she had been lifted out of poverty by the government because she earns just over 5,000 rupees a month – $81 – she would probably only laugh.

India beats poverty
 
.
I do agree on this article partly. Like that IMF chap Montak who said that Rs.28 is enough to feed a person a day,which was utter nonsense.Rs.28 is not sufficient for one meal also these days.

But then,there is NREGA schemes which have helped many also. But I agree that current stats whether India,China or USA are being fudged . Plus India is experiencing a recession in the job market already.
 
.
I always wondered about these poverty stats.

For example I know there are places in China where there's "no poverty," but they in fact only have things to eat because they have land, only a house because that land is worthless and also free, the bricks and stuff were cheapest available.

These peasants have close to no income, but they can have food because they got land, but all they have is the most basic crap.

They can't spend anything on other things, like books, computers, cars and the like.

How is that out of poverty. I think the limit needs to be about 1,000 USD a month per person to be called "out of poverty." But in reality, this limit is only achieved by a relatively small percentage of people currently.
 
. .
The world standard is $1.25(PPP) per day. India maintains that. Then ask UN if you have any problem.

Problem with that is that UN sucks and you can only live like a HUMAN and not a ANIMAL (as 75% of Indians do) if you earn more than $10 a day..
Keep in mind that inflation also counts. Don't understand how those flashy smiles and nice suits in UN could think someone could survive off a $1.25 budget... Maybe they should first be forced to live like that.
 
.
I always wondered about these poverty stats.

For example I know there are places in China where there's "no poverty," but they in fact only have things to eat because they have land, only a house because that land is worthless and also free, the bricks and stuff were cheapest available.

These peasants have close to no income, but they can have food because they got land, but all they have is the most basic crap.

They can't spend anything on other things, like books, computers, cars and the like.

How is that out of poverty. I think the limit needs to be about 1,000 USD a month per person to be called "out of poverty." But in reality, this limit is only achieved by a relatively small percentage of people currently.

I totally agree with you.Stats is one thing you can fudge.

There is a saying on stats.

Engineers says he can make 1 to 2
Physicist says 1 to 5
Statistician say he can make 1 to 1000,10,000 or infinity
 
.
I always wondered about these poverty stats.

For example I know there are places in China where there's "no poverty," but they in fact only have things to eat because they have land, only a house because that land is worthless and also free, the bricks and stuff were cheapest available.

These peasants have close to no income, but they can have food because they got land, but all they have is the most basic crap.

They can't spend anything on other things, like books, computers, cars and the like.

How is that out of poverty. I think the limit needs to be about 1,000 USD a month per person to be called "out of poverty." But in reality, this limit is only achieved by a relatively small percentage of people currently.

True. There are some people in Hong Kong who could be considered "poor" but in terms of actual wealth they could probably buy multiple mansions in Africa.

Then there are the poor people in Rural China, who live decent and healthy lives, and in fact some rich city people go back to experience the "rural village lifestyle" which is not that uncomfortable.

It's a sliding scale really. And depends what a person needs to be happy.
 
.
Problem with that is that UN sucks and you can only live like a HUMAN and not a ANIMAL (as 75% of Indians do) if you earn more than $10 a day..
Keep in mind that inflation also counts. Don't understand how those flashy smiles and nice suits in UN could think someone could survive off a $1.25 budget... Maybe they should first be forced to live like that.
It's not constant. The rate changes.
 
.
also see this .......alws poverty poverty .....
diamond-tower-GIFT.JPG


http://www.defence.pk/forums/genera...dia-developing-but-still-long-way-go-452.html
 
. .
Drawings make everything look good.

Exactly. Posting misleading videos and stats on internet is not going to change the facts about Pakistan.

we see too many videos of Pakistan on sites like youtube and everywhere on the internet. indeed Pakistanis post far more misleading videos and statistics on internet despite India having six times the population of Pakistan and Indians being generally better educated and well off than Pakistanis.

it would be perfectly normal if Indians posted six times more than Pakistanis on internet, but we see seeing a diametrically reverse trend with Pakistanis being far greater propagandists.
 
.
Exactly. Posting misleading videos and stats on internet is not going to change the facts about Pakistan.

we see too many videos of Pakistan on sites like youtube and everywhere on the internet. indeed Pakistanis post far more misleading videos and statistics on internet despite India having six times the population of Pakistan and Indians being generally better educated and well off than Pakistanis.

it would be perfectly normal if Indians posted six times more than Pakistanis on internet, but we see seeing a diametrically reverse trend with Pakistanis being far greater propagandists.

Yeah keep dreaming kid :sleep:
 
. . .
You mean there is no poor in Indian - Really? :blink:


I am very poor ... so can you or the barfeela bheria do a favour to me chacha.... send me some money please .. 8-9 lakh will be good to start with...
 
.
Back
Top Bottom