A review
The Politics of Poverty – 1
Identification of the poor: The big question
By Sachin Kumar Jain
THE STORY OF HALKI BAI AND RAJJO BAI
Residing in a hut in the village Ghandila of Seoni district in Madhya Pradesh is Halki Bai, an abandoned tribal woman. She works as a labourer and earns a meagre amount of Rs.15/- per day. For this, she has to struggle hard and manages to get work for just around 8 days in a month. In an accident, she got wounded and the treatment cost turned her into a debtor of Rs.31,000/-. Being landless and with no alternative source of income, she stays in a very miserable condition. Upon all these factors, the biggest surprise and irony is that she scored 19 points out of the total of 52 points in the BPL (Below Poverty Line) Survey which automatically excluded her from the BPL category and placed her in the category of the APL (Above Poverty Line).
A similar situation: Rajjo Bai is a widow living in the village Pottia. The earlier survey list had enlisted Rajjo Bai in the BPL category and she had been availing the much-required benefits of government schemes and Antodaya scheme but according to the recent survey she no longer belongs to the BPL category. In this survey, she scored 17 points and with the tentative cut off points being 13 for Seoni district, poor and unfortunate Rajjo Bai goes out of the BPL list, for no fault of her.
PROVING TO BE POOR-A TOUGH BATTLE?
This is not just the story of Halki Bai or Rajjo Bai but of 10 lakh marginalised and vulnerable families in the state of Madhya Pradesh who are facing the pain of discrimination. They have been excluded from the BPL (Below Poverty Line) list because of irrelevant and inhuman indicators and the non-committal process of the survey. An in-depth study by the Democratic Alliance Campaign for Good Governance (DACG) in coordination with ActionAid (Bhopal) confirms that proving to be poor has been a tough battle for the real poor while an easy one for the non-poor.
QUESTIONABLE ACTION
With the motive to reduce the burden to the best possible extent, the government has already decided the results in advance without completing the entire process decided for identifying the poor. Thus the parameters fixed and the processes undertaken to identify the poor have become quite questionable. The process of BPL survey primarily involved a questionnaire of 13 questions (indicators), each question having 5 options to which 0 to 4 points were allotted. The state identifies 37.43% people who have derived minimum points and considers them to be those poor people who can be taken in the BPL list.
POSSESSION OF LAND
On analysis of the indicators, one realises the irrelevant perceptions on which it is based upon. It is understood that the size of land holding is considered as an important indicator; but quality of the land is the additional factor which provides weightage to this indicator but unfortunately this aspect has been completely ignored.
While going through the two years study conducted by the Alliance of Civil Society Organisations in the state of Madhya Pradesh which is purely a people centred effort to ensure effective survey, it was realised that 58% families from the villages covered in the study feel that productivity of land is more important than the total land owned by them. For example- Sambu, a Korku Adivasi (tribal) of Rayatvadi village of Betul district was given 18 points in the survey for possessing 3 acres of hilly, unirrigated, stony and unproductive land thus making him overqualified for being in the BPL list.
HOUSE AND TOILET
In the last five years the Government of Madhya Pradesh has implemented various development schemes and sanitation campaigns in which 10 lakh toilets were constructed in the villages by contributing Rs 650 for construction of each.
Now this survey considers the toilet as an indicator due to which all those poor families who had constructed toilets under the government’s scheme received 3-4 points which ultimately increased their total points. Thus availing the benefit of a scheme which is again non-productive in nature has proved to be a curse for these families.
The type of house is another indicator which has become a woe for the poor. Families having a pucca house ( a term used in India for permanent housing ) earned more points. No attention was paid to address the issue of those pucca houses which were actually built under the Indira Awas Yojana which provides poor families with Rs 20,000 for the construction of a house in mere 20 square metres of land. All the Indira Awas Yojana supported houses are expected to have in-built toilets. Thus the poor who availed the benefit of a government scheme to have shelter loses out on the BPL survey aspect by earning more points for both having a pucca house and a toilet.
During the discussion with the community at the time of the study, it came to light that since the scheme was ‘target oriented’ the beneficiaries were under pressure to complete the construction. In several cases the families have had to sell off their land, bullocks and other assets. Also, due to corruption they did not even get the entire allotted amount.
This raises the question of the basis on which a family can be considered above Below Poverty Line, if it has benefitted from Indira Awas Yojana. It is obvious that this scheme is not giving any regular or productive returns nor is it a source of income.
Hence it is essential to analyse the indicator of pucca house and differentiate between a house built through Indira Awas Yojana and a pucca house built by the family themselves.
CLOTHES
An Adivasi, Ruddi of Duni village, Betul District used to migrate and work as an agricultural labourer. Looking at his poor status his employer donated 7 pairs of clothes two years ago which he still possesses. This gift turned against him during the BPL survey. Possession of these many clothes made him a non-poor man as per the survey schedule which includes clothes as one of the indicators in its gambit. Ruddi scored 18 points and was excluded from the list. As per the government norms a family possessing more than four pairs of clothes is not considered as poor.
In this regard every villager and sensitive person who believes in humanity has criticised and opposed this criterion. The reason behind this is that during the times of any festival or ceremony poor families are rewarded with clothes by the wealthier families and in addition the poor also go to the extent of taking loans from local money lenders for the purchase of clothes for festivals which pushes them into the vicious cycle of poverty. Thus, the possessing of clothes seems to be an improper indicator to measure family well-being.
FOOD
While defining poverty the analysts have given importance to food availability-this indicator focuses on the number of times a family avails food, whether the family gets food for one time or gets two square meals. As per the analysis, a person who avails food earns 4 points.
However, the quality and nutritional aspect of food has been totally ignored. Even the means of livelihood which is an important indicator linked with food intake has been completely ignored. For example, a person may fill his stomach by begging, eating from garbage, collecting thrown away food, means of prostitution, and manual scavenging.
POSSESSION OF CONSUMABLE ITEMS AND EDUCATION
Although landless Adivasi-Ram Prasad of Semori Panchayat (Betul) has no resources for his survival, possessing a cycle, radio, and sending his two sons to school has deprived him of being included in the BPL list.
Looking at the present circumstances it can be assumed that any person earning Rs. 1000 can purchase a radio of Rs. 100 and a cycle of Rs. 800. The possession of consumable items can deprive a poor family of much needed BPL benefits as they earn an additional 3-4 points if they possess consumable items.
It is relatively easy to possess consumable items like a radio or a cycle. One can obtain these things either by means of promotional schemes or credit from local money lenders at high interest rates which puts the poor family into a cycle of debt. Although the toughest toughest job of life is to arrange for food, and particularly it is so for the marginalised families and children.
In case of education and children going to school, it is quite obvious that presently there is an increase in the number of school going children and this is primarily due to the promotional aspects linked with the school like the mid-day meal scheme of the government. This has encouraged quite a number of poor families to send their children to school.
Another aspect regarding education which was discovered during the survey is the belief that an educated person cannot be poor. This perspective has led to a loss for several poor families who have unemployed and educated individuals in their families by earning a reward of 3-4 points in the BPL survey.
With regard to earning a livelihood (occupation), the government believes that skilled workers have secured regular jobs. Hence skilled workers and the other category of wage earners (government and private jobs) have been given the same weightage.
“WHAT KIND OF HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED BY THE POOR PEOPLE?” A PUZZLING QUESTION FOR THE POOR.
In this survey a puzzling question is asked regarding the kind of government help needed by the poor people. This question has equally confused the enumerators and the community. The community thought that the government is willing to extend loan support to them and this prompted them to answer in the expectation of availing a loan. The larger the amount requested-lesser the number of points earned.
This led to several disqualifications of a number of genuinely poor families from the BPL list in a very different manner-the poor did not expect nor did they have the capacity to ask and then repay the loan amount. Hence they did not request the government to lend them money with the assumption that non-requirement of loan means self sufficiency. This resulted in not being included in the BPL list as they earned more points (3-4 points) due to this pseudo sufficiency.
Neither the government nor the Department Of Rural Development has conducted any study on how the villagers are trapped in the clutches of the credit syndicates functioning in the rural areas. Thus, those who have taken loans from banks were considered rich and given 3 points but the ground reality is that the banks have distributed the maximum amount of loan in the tribal area, despite that not much change has been noticed in the poverty status of the region.
In Petelavad block of Jabhua district, banks have distributed loans of around Rs.12 crores in the last three years and now most of the tribals have been declared ‘defaulters’. These loans are being repaid by selling off their land, houses, and other assets. Hence, one who has not taken any loan is rich.
However, on the other hand-one who is very poor does not borrow money or take a loan because there is no one ready to lend money to a poor person.
CONCLUSION
In this context, a very pertinent question arises on whether there is a possibility of an effective process for identification of the poor? Undoubtedly the possibilities are certainly there but only if the criteria are fixed on a humanitarian basis.
In this present context it is clearly felt that the government for showing the success of its developmental programmes like construction of toilets, implementation of Indira Awas Yojana, and campaign on education is trying to portray that these programmes have been successful in eradicating poverty in rural areas and people have become self-sufficient. Besides, the state has also failed to set a norm to control non-eligible people who have managed to get included in the list and fix any criteria for such people thus discouraging any such endeavours.
Even though everyone has fulfilled the assigned responsibilities there is a sincere need to be more sensitive else, such tokenism would land a genuinely poor family far away from the benefits and would further slip into the abyss of poverty; never being able to come out of the 13 laid indicators for many more years to come.
The Politics of Poverty-2
Who gets the benefit of being identified as poor?
By Sachin Kumar Jain
THE STORY OF DEVELOPMENT IN A TRIBAL VILLAGE OF A FOREST IN HARRA, BETUL DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA
Located in the dense forest ruins of Satpuda region is Harra-a tribal forest village in Betul district of Madhya Pradesh having no access to roads. No developmental work has been taken up in this village in the last five years. As the village land falls in the forest area, according to law-the amount allotted for the development of this village goes into the account of the forest department. Hence, no investment is made for the development of the village.
A QUESTION MARK ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BPL SURVEY
On one hand, while the 1997-98 BPL (Below Poverty Line) survey identified 30 families in BPL but the recent set of indicators and processes based survey could only consider one family as poor. While on the other hand, the participatory study conducted by the Democratic Campaign For Good Governance (DCGG) in coordination with ActionAid (Bhopal) revealed that 51 families even after staying in the stage of poverty were not included in the list. This is not the only example. Similar examples extend to almost all the villages in the state, where 10-15 percent of the families have not been included in the list of BPL even after being in the state of acute poverty.
Even though the economists in their studies have concluded that poverty in Madhya Pradesh has not declined and has instead increased, the development department concludes that during the past five years incidence of poverty had been reduced by 5.09 percent in Madhya Pradesh and now it is 37.43 percent.
This conclusion has raised several controversial questions. Even the Supreme Court of India in its decision stated on 8th May 2003 recommended to immediately give benefits of Antodaya and other welfare schemes to all the primitive tribes, women headed families, families having mentally and physically disabled members, destitute, and widows in the village
Thus, even the Supreme Court of India has put a question mark on the authenticity of the BPL survey. This means that more than 5 lakh families living below the poverty line are not included in the list in Madhya Pradesh. The government has however accepted that the 1996-97 survey was extremely controversial and due to lack of a systematic process and a proper monitoring system non-eligible people were also included in the BPL list. The actual vulnerable and marginalised people were deprived of the state sponsored developmental and welfare benefits.
LOOPHOLES IN THE PROCESS OF THE BPL SURVEY
Experience suggests that there are still some loopholes in the process of the BPL survey. The DCGG with the help of over 230 other like minded agencies monitored the process of survey in over 10 thousand villages and tried to be just. It was only because of the presence of the campaign that it was possible to clarify that Charua Singh of Jalpani village of Mandla district was excluded from the BPL list because the enumerator had filled the form without consulting Charua Singh and thus ignored that he was a bonded labourer. Similarly, in Panna district, an amount of Rs. 200/- was charged from the poor families as fees for filling up the BPL forms.
The economists believe around 7%-10% of people in our society are facing latent poverty and starve for food everyday. They even do not get two square meals a day but no priority is being given to the problems of mentally and physically challenged people, disabled people, scavengers, and beggars.
GRAM SABHA
On the basis of points allotted (the maximum points fixed for the 13 questions is 52, out of which 12 to 15 points will qualify any family to be identified as a poor family), those deriving minimum points were included in the BPL list.
To ensure proper selection, provision was made to read out this proper selection, provision was made to read out this BPL list in the Gram Sabha (village meeting) so that the villagers would come to know about the points allotted to them. In this regard, the Gram Sabha was given the right to present and approve the list of actual poor in the village.
However, a lot of confusion was created in the process. Hence, the norm was set that the list would be read in the Gram Sabha first and the claims raised or controversies/problems would be sorted out later and the improved list would again be presented in the second Gram Sabha.
Although, the top government officials said that there would be two Gram Sabha’s, the block level Panchayat officials declared the list in the first Gram Sabha. In Patelawad, the responsible officer of Block, the Panchayat Chief Executive Officer gave the order in writing. Even after these many clear orders were given by the state government to solve this confusion, the Kotma Block Panchayat Officer refused to disclose the list in public and said that the list was confidential.
On the other hand, in Bhimpur of Betul district, the Block Panchayat Officer declared the efforts of NGO’s as anti-government activity and ordered to refrain.
As per the study of 100 Panchayat it was known that in 67 Panchayats, no second Gram Sabha meeting was organised for approving the list and the panchayats where the list were disclosed, no clarification was provided to the villagers regarding the meaning of allotted points. Thus, the villagers did not know the points required to be included in the BPL list or the reason they were excluded from the list.
Hence, it is high time to give due importance to the role of Gram Sabha in this process and if now the Gram Sabha is not involved, the interests of the would again be overlooked and the rich and influential people will dominate the list.
‘INFLUENCED BY POLITICAL INTERESTS’
Influenced by political interests the government has disapproved the inclusion of famous economists – Sundaram and Tendulkar who believe that the reduction in percentage of poverty among Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe categories is very low in each state as compared to the reduction in poverty in general of the higher category.
Although as per the government, in the tribal district of Balaghat, the rate of poverty has been reduced to 53.63% from 63.82%, which means a straight decline by 10.19%. Similarly, in tribal dominated Mandla and Dindori, poverty reduction rate is from 9.43% to 9.11%. Even in Jabhua district, which has nearly 90% of tribal population, the percentage of people living below poverty line has been reduced from 54.37% to 45.69%.
In contrast to this, reduction in percentage of poverty amongst the general and upper category districts has been very low. For example-figures for this stand as follows: Datia-2.72%; Indore-3.18%; Ujjain-4.69%; Gwalior-4.9%, and Hoshangabad-5.64%.
STANDARDISATION OF POVERTY
Even after accepting that the 1997-98 survey was irrelevant and partial, the government has still taken it as the use for the new survey and by taking the ratios as the baseline-it has ‘standardised’ poverty for different states and districts. Thus, there is a need to analyse these economies from the political point of view. The communities and districts which have their hold in the politics of Madhya Pradesh have decided the percentage of poverty as per their convenience. For example-the district of Narsinghpur has good and productive land but when it comes to BPL-the survey says that the district has 46.58% of its population living below the poverty line because it is a politically powerful district.
In this context the district of Hoshangabad too is no different, it holds a good share of good quality productive land but the reduction in poverty has been recorded to be only 5.64%. On the other hand, the districts with high population of Sahariya community like Shivpuri and Sheopur where people die of starvation showed that only 24.89% and 26.14% of people are living below the poverty line.
In Balaghat, Mandla, and Badwani although the number of people living below the poverty line is higher as compared to the previous survey, the numbers have been reduced considerably.
The BPL cut-off point (one obtaining minimum points would be included in the BPL list) will play a vital role in deciding the percentage of people living below the poverty line in a district. As per the decided percentage of BPL families for a district, those families obtaining minimum points would be considered as poor and this point would be considered as the cut-off point for the district.
The family of Gulab Adivasi of Dobri Village, Seoni obtained 20 points. Thus, the family of eight members earning Rs. 35 per day was excluded from the BPL list because as per the government norms-only 34.79% of families of Seoni district can be included in the BPL list, and as the figure got completed with the families obtaining 13 points, this point was considered as the cut-off point for the district. Thus, the family of Gulab which struggles hard for its survival was out of the BPL list.
While going through the figures of BPL families in Balaghat, 53.63% families were identified as BPL families and the points obtained by these families was 14-which was declared as the cut-off point. The cut-off point varied from 12-15 in different districts. For example: In Mandla-15, Badvani-15, Morena-12, Datiya-13, Seoni-12, and Gwalior-13. The controversy: By deciding different cut-off points the parameters taken for measuring poverty is different for each district and hence the government has tried to relate the figures.
A suggestion: Instead of taking district wise cut-offs, why not prepare one survey list at the state level and consider 37.43% from the bottom as the cut-off point for all districts? However, the government has adopted the easy to make its work simpler.
SUGGESTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Considering the limitations of a technical process and pre-determined indicators for conducting a wealth survey, the government of Madhya Pradesh in the month of August in the year 2002 gave relevant suggestions to the central government.
The suggestion suggested that a participatory approach should be adopted at the village level to exclude the non-eligible people in the BPL list and include the eligible people (poor people who need the benefits provided by the BPL scheme of the government).
One such approach that was identified and suggested was ‘wealth ranking’. Another approach that was identified and suggested was that the Gram Sabha should be involved in the process to decide the list of poor families and each state should be given a free hand to change the survey’s questionnaire as per their requirements and status of poverty in their states. However, these suggestions were overlooked by the central government.
After this, the government of Madhya Pradesh did not raise the issue nor did it take any constructive measures by itself in its jurisdiction (region). This is the reason why the so-called ‘peoples’ participation has been questioned in this survey. Some quarters clarify that even after putting claims-objections, no changes were made in the Below Poverty Line list primarily because by carrying out this the organisers would have fallen into the circle of criticism.
Due to this many eligible poor people were excluded from the Below Poverty Line list.
CONCLUSION
One can only conclude from the nature of events that the government is not at all serious in the eradication of poverty. The functionaries too, do not wish to admit that their region is still in the vicious grip of poverty and starvation.
Very clearly this means that the poor must remain poor since they are unable to express and retaliate, and food must only be provided to the extent that it keeps the flame of worry of filling the belly burning on the platter of hope. With the consistent worry of survival the poor would be forced to think only about food, cloth, and shelter, and would be unable to think about their entry into the larger society.
Thus, it stands true that poorness and poverty work as a better proposition to some administrators who enjoy the luxury of power. One can always use these struggling sections of society as cheap but high quality labour force and earn profits. Presumably they would not even speak out for asking for justice and rights. They form the major section of society which can be used by politicians to rule and lord over. In the context of human rights the irony of the situation is that the poor do not even have the right to determine whether they are poor, deprived, marginalised and battling hunger.
About the author
Sachin Kumar Jain is the Director of Vikas Samvad Human Development Resource and Advocacy Organisation. He has written 1500 articles on issues of social concerns – Poverty, Hunger, Democracy, Governance and Identity. Also he has written 41 booklets/ primers/manuals on Food, Hunger, Gender, Food Security, Entitlements, MGNREGA, Health and Nutrition, displacement, migration, climate change etc. He is also a TEDx speaker.
He has published 13 fact-finding reports on social exclusion, displacement, migration, malnutrition etc. He has facilitated 190 training programs/dialogue sessions in 6 states. He is also associated with Right to Food Campaign and Advisor to the Supreme Court Commissioners on Right to Food.
Watch his TED talk: https://youtu.be/jo287LkuLhk
This article has been republished from Anubhuti Publications with the permission of the publisher and the author.
Interesting.