1. Rural Poor 42%, Urban Poor 26%-Expert Group Report
|
| ABSTRACT: |
Through the centuries the wealth generated in the countryside has flowed into cities, which have given little back to the countryside.
|
The divergence in growth of GDPs rural urban poverty divide is ever increasing with no signs of convergence thus making inclusive growth for 60% of the population residing in rural Bharat a mirage. Is this what the planning mandarins and policy pundits pursued for the past 60 years?’
|
Share of Agriculture in GDP and Labor Force
|
| India |
1960% |
1980% |
2000 |
2006 |
| Share in GDP |
50 @{1:0.68} |
37 @{1:0.54} |
25 @{1:0.42} |
18 @{1:0.32} |
| Share in Labor Force |
73 |
69 |
60> |
56 |
|
@Figures in brackets show declining trend in proportionate share in GDP of Agri work force-Computed.
|
Source: Key indicators for Asia and Pacific 2009(ADB), Key indicators of the labor market 2009 (ILO), WDI 2009
|
| ‘For everyone rupee income of work force of Non-Agri sector(industry and services), work force in Agri sector income was only 68 paise in 1960, which fell to 37 paise in 1980, down to 32 paise in 2000, and further steeply declined to 25 paise by 2006. |
The Eleventh Plan confirms that,“GDP per agricultural worker increased by only about 75% ” while there was 400% increase in over all real per capita GDP in real terms since 1950.
|
| 42% of Rural people poor, 26% of Urbanites Poor |
As much as 41.8 per cent of the rural population survives with monthly per capita consumption expenditure of Rs. 447, in other words they spend only Rs. 447 on essential necessities like food, fuel, light, clothing and footwear says a report in Dec 09 by the expert group, headed by Suresh Tendulkar, former chairman of PM’s Economic Advisory Council. The number of poor in 2004-05 is put at 407.6 million. The report states that the rural poverty ratio has been understated by earlier estimates and the new methodology has led to a significant revision in the earlier Planning Commission rural poverty estimate of 28.3 per cent in 2004-05, to 41.8 per cent for the same year.
|
| Most of the small farmers fall under this category. This is reflecting the inescapable point that even the UPA's gradualist economic reforms have bypassed the vast swathe of rural India. |
Among the urban population, 25.7 per cent are poor, spending Rs. 578 on essential needs.
|
As per 2004-05 prices, a person spending less than Rs 19 in urban areas and Rs 15 in rural areas would now be called poor. The current poverty line is a per capita expenditure of Rs 12 per day.
|
The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised survey indicate that 77 per cent of the population were living with a per capita consumption of up to Rs 20 per day.
|
| However, the Economic Survey 2008-09 based upon the calculation of household consumption indicated that per capita consumption expenditure of 60.5 per cent of population was less than Rs 20 per day. |
| Regional Disparities |
| The worst hit State remains Orissa, whose rural poverty is 60.8 per cent, urban poverty is 37.6 per cent and aggregate percentage of poverty is 57.2 per cent, earning the dismal distinction of being the number one State at an all-India level for being home to the highest percentage of people below the poverty line. |
| The distressing aspect to the rural scenario continues to be the parlous state of affairs in the so-called Bimaru State comprising Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh where rural poverty is at its worst at 55.7 per cent, 53.6 per cent, 35.8 per cent and 42.7 per cent respectively, with some modicum of relief only in Rajasthan. For Bihar, the urban poverty is 43.7 per cent while its aggregate poverty level is at 54.4 per cent, the second in the list of home to maximum percentage of poor people. |
| Earnings Disparities- Salary,services,education&Location |
| NCAER Data-2004-05-(Rs. Per Annum) |
EarningS
Country Avg *(%) |
Avg. Urban household |
Avg. Rural Household |
| Salaried households *(18.4%) |
110,000 |
65,000-Country Avg. |
| Modern Services Sector *(14.3%) |
112,000 |
|
| Households with a graduate *(17%) |
143,000 |
109,000 |
Location
a.InTowns less than 5 lakh population
B.Big cities more than 10 lakh population |
80,000
115,000 |
52,000 |
|
| Figures in brackets refer to percentage of households to total households. Source: NCAER, BS 141209-Opinion - Sunil Jain |
| Among all groups of people, the NCAER data shows, it is the salaried class that earns the most — in 2004-05, the average salaried household earned Rs 110,344 per year as compared to the country’s average of Rs 65,041. Similarly, the household which earned its income in the modern services sector earned Rs 112,222 and, in the case of households which had a graduate, the average income was Rs 117,844. |
Location also makes a difference and while the average village household had an annual income of Rs 51,922, this rose to Rs 80,217 in towns with less than half a million persons and to Rs 115,253 in big cities with more than a million persons. |
| 2.Why farmers are angry and agitating? |
| “As long as the brazen inequality between urban and rural India exists, there will be angry confrontations…” Bhaskar Ghose |
The answers are fairly obvious. Against city-dwellers, against what they perceive as a luxurious way of life, against a place with paved roads, street lights, smart buildings, smarter cars and glass-fronted shops with all kinds of glittering goods on display. |
| They, on the other hand, have little by way of power; many places have no running water, or more correctly hardly any water, running or otherwise; no shops; no paved roads of the kind they see in the capital; no street lights; no schools; and no sleek new hospitals, not even the shabby rundown government hospitals that exist in the city. |
| So, is it very surprising if the brazen inequality they see stirs them to fury and violence? After all, they live in the same country. They are told that in this country everyone is equal and that the state is very anxious that they become prosperous and live lives at least as good as that of people in cities such as Delhi. The anger is at the deception and the monumental hypocrisy of those whom they elect to Parliament. |
| The urban-rural dichotomy, if one can call it so, that exists in this country is not a recent development. It has been there for centuries, from the days when India was a number of kingdoms. We hear of the great cities of Ujjain, Kannauj, Hastinapur, Fatehpur Sikri, Agra, Hampi, Halebid and others. We know very little of the rural parts of the kingdoms or empires in which these great cities were located. Through the centuries the wealth generated in the countryside has flowed into cities, which have given little back to the countryside. |
| T he state considers it legitimate, by passing appropriate legislation or orders, to force inhabitants of the countryside to sell a part of what they produce at a price that the state considers to be fair – be it rice, wheat, sugarcane or any other product. But the state would think it horrifying to require manufacturers of toilet soap and detergents or cars and machinery to sell a part of their total production to the state at a price the state fixes. For instance, would the state force General Motors to sell some of its Chevrolet Optras, priced at around Rs.8 lakh to Rs.9 lakh, to the state for Rs.3 lakh? |
| Notice the difference in perception. This is what translates into the rage of the farmers at glamorous cities where glamorous people live. |
| The rage of the Gujjars is for a slightly different reason. They see others walking into colleges and technical institutions and then into jobs just because they have been born in certain communities, and they cannot understand why they are denied that perquisite. In a larger sense, both the sugarcane growers and the Gujjars share a perception: that they are being treated as different, as second-class citizens. The real class being the one with the good life and all that the good life brings. |
| As long as these conflicting assumptions persist, the divide – angry, confrontational – will continue. And the tragedy is that this happens in a democracy where the countryside sends its representatives to Parliament and to State Assemblies where they do not, or cannot, resolve these differing perceptions. |
| Mahatma Gandhi wanted to start with our villages. We have started from the other end, looking at our villages from the outside and determining what is good for them. Perhaps, there was a very practical basis for Gandhi’s advocacy of the villages, which needs to permeate the thinking of our ruling elite and not be confined to the ritual adoption of an earnest demeanor and the delivery of noble speeches on October 2 every year. |
| New class conflict? Courtesy: Front line Dec. 05-18, 2009 –Abridged-KRSR/151209 |
