Poverty Line in India: Changing Discourses and Policy Implications

Redefining poverty line by Rangarajan Committee report 2014 has set a fresh debate on India’s policy implications. It highlights three out of ten Indians as below poverty line, raising the poverty ratio to 29.5% in 2011-12 from 21.9%, based on Tendulkar estimation.  

Defining poverty line and the history of counting poor can be dated back to 19th century of pre-Independent India. The controversy around the term and its definitional clarity was one of the major concerns for our great visionaries and scholars like Jawaharal Nehru and Dadabhai Naoroji. The earliest effort to estimate poverty was Dadabhai Naoroji’s “Poverty and Un-British Rule in India” where he defined subsistence-based poverty line at 1867-68 prices. Later in 1936, National Planning Committee under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru made an economic review and recognized that “there was lack of food, of clothing, of housing and of every other essential requirement of human existence”, and suggested development policy objective ensuring adequate standard of living for the masses to get rid-of India’s appalling poverty.[i] The Committee identified poverty with sheer necessities for human existence like, nutrition with balanced diet of 2400 to 2800 calories per adult worker, clothing with 30 yards per capita per annum, and housing with 100 sq. ft per capita. Since then both its concept and counting has undergone several changes in post-independent India.

In 1962, independent India made its first attempt to define poverty line.  A Working Group with eminent Indian economists and social thinkers like D.R. Gadgil, B.N. Ganguli, V.K.R.V. Rao and others recommended along with 1958 - Nutrition Advisory Committee of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) a national minimum for a rural Indian as Rs 20 per month at 1960-61 prices and for an urban Indian as Rs.25 per month; ensuring energy requirements for an active and healthy life.[ii]. This did not include expenditures on health and education, which were to be provided by the state according to the Constitution.[iii]

 Almost a decade later in 1971 noted scholars Dandekar & Rath in their phenomenal work "Poverty in India"[iv] redefined poverty line with average calorie norm of 2,250 calories per capita per day for both rural and urban areas. This was equivalent to Rs 14.20 per month for a rural Indian and RS 22.60 for an urban Indian at 1960-61 prices.[v] In the same year, Planning Commission began official estimation of poverty ratio at both national and state levels, based on consumer expenditure data of National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) and classification of calorie consumption cost in rural and urban India. Thus defining poverty line in terms of calorie intake became an accepted criterion in India, and estimation continued both with quinquinniel and annual NSSO data based on Uniform Reference Period (30 day recall period) .

In 1979, a "Task Force on Projections of Minimum Needs and Effective Consumption Demand" of the Perspective Planning Division under Planning Commission revised poverty line as per-capita expenditure level at which per-capita, per day calorie intake was 2400 calories in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas. The Task Force used age, sex-activity specific calorie allowances recommended by the Nutrition Expert Group in 1968 to estimate average daily per capita requirements for rural and urban areas using age-sex-occupational structure of their respective population. The monetary equivalent of these norms (poverty lines), were Rs.49.09 per capita per month in rural areas and Rs.56.64 per capita per month in urban areas.[vi]

In 1993, another expert group was constituted, who submitted its report under the Chairmanship of Prof. D.T. Lakdawala on ‘Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor’, once again resettling the poverty line. The group recommended continuation of calorie norm for poverty line, but with state-specific revision having following two steps,

1.   For state-specific poverty line with base year 1973-74 along with the standardized commodity basket corresponding to the poverty line at national level, prices prevailing in each state in the base year needs to be valued.

2.   Update poverty line reflecting current prices in a given year by applying state-specific consumer price indices.

 The Government of India accepted these recommendations with minor modifications in 1997.[vii]

In 1990s, India made a structural shift with its economic liberalization policy. Purchasing power was enhanced significantly with gradual inclination for non-food consumption. Changing trend in life-style was visible, which demanded a methodological shift in poverty estimation. A debate aroused for conceptual change from basic calorie norm to capture greater needs of individuals including health and education towards multi-dimensional poverty approach. The old Nehruvian idea of poverty started replacing with broader socio-economic needs with greater accessibility and higher aspirations of people. In 1999, NSSO simultaneously introduced Mixed Reference Period (MRP) method for measuring consumption of five low-frequency items (clothing, footwear, durables, education and health) over previous 365 days recall period, and rest of the items over previous 30 days. This was done to get a stable expenditure pattern for non-food items, which gave a new direction to revise the poverty line. In 2005, expert group headed by Prof. Suresh D. Tendulkar was constituted to review the methodology for official estimation of poverty. The Committee submitted its report in 2009 with four major departures as follows,

1.   To move away poverty line from calorie intake norm.

2.   Uniform Poverty Line Basket based on latest available household consumption data on rural and urban population.

3.   Price adjustment procedure that is predominantly based in the same data set that underlies poverty estimation and corrects the problems associated with externally generated and population-segment-specific price indices with out-dated price and weight base used so far in the official poverty estimation.

4.   Explicit provision of private expenditure on health and education in price indices which has been rising over time, and test for their adequacy to ensure certain desirable educational and health outcomes. 

Rejecting calorie based poverty line by Tendulkar committee was historic, which went against the long-term established view. The general anger was that many who deserve public support to continue its caps on the numbers of people entitled to various government benefits would remain excluded with Tendulkar estimates. It was also being criticized on lack of explicit normative content in poverty line. Delinking consumption poverty from calorie norms, Tendulkar had focused on proper treatment of price differentials over space and time, which was also recommended by Lakdawala committee. This led to significant upward revision of estimates of rural poverty that were attributed to faulty price adjustments in the past and corrected many cases where the Lakdawala method unrealistically measured a state to have much less rural poverty than urban.[viii]

To encounter the flaws, Rangarajan Committee was formed in 2012, and submitted its report in 2014 with latest poverty line. It not only suggested a calorie-plus norm that increases poverty numbers beyond Tendulkar but also endorsed the view that poverty estimates should not be used to cap entitlement to government benefits. The new consumption basket to redefine poverty line consists of adequate nourishment, clothing, house rent, conveyance, education and a behaviorally determined level of other non-food expenses. The revised poverty line has following components,

1.   Food component of the poverty line considers average requirements of calories, proteins and fats based on ICMR norms differentiated by age, gender and activity for all-India rural and urban regions. These nutrient norms are met for persons located in sixth fractile (25-30%) in rural areas, and in fourth fractile (15-20%) in urban areas in 2011-12. The monthly per capita consumption expenditure on food in these fractile classes is Rs.554 in rural areas and Rs.656 in urban areas.

2.   Non-food component of poverty line considers median fractile (45-50%) values of clothing expenses, rent, conveyance and education expenses with Rs.141 per capita per month in rural areas and Rs.407 in urban areas.

3.   The observed expenses of all other non-food expenses of the fractile classes that meet the nutrition requirements are also considered as part of poverty line basket, which is Rs.277 per capita per month in rural areas and Rs.344 in urban areas.

Thus Monthly Expenditure of Rs 972 (554 +141 +277 for Food, Four essential non food and other non food items) for a rural Indian and Rs 1407 (656+407+344 for the same) for an urban Indian constitute India’s new poverty lines. The Rangarajan Group uses Modified Mixed Recall Period (MMRP) consumption expenditure data of the NSSO. The national rural and urban poverty lines were used to derive the state-wise poverty lines by using the implicit price derived from the quantity and value of consumption observed in the NSSO’s 68th Round of Consumer Expenditure Survey (2011-12) to estimate state relative to all-India Fisher price indices. Using these and the state-specific distribution of persons by expenditure groups (NSS), state-specific ratios of rural and urban poverty were estimated. State-level poverty ratio was estimated as weighted average of the rural and urban poverty ratios and the national poverty ratio was computed again as the population-weighted average of state-wise poverty ratios.[ix] 

With this latest definition, India has made a long journey at policy level to define poverty line and to deliver public services to the poor. Such evolving attempts are crucial and need to be continued till the time India becomes free from such “worst form of violence”.

Rakhee Bhattacharya and Shruti Issar

---

 

Notes

 

[i] http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/surya.pdf

 

[ii] http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0172e/x0172e02.htm

 

[iii] http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/publications/pub93_nopoors

 

[iv] http://www.epw.in/special-articles/poverty-india.html

 

[v] http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/af349e/af349e0k.htm

 

[vi] "Report of The Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor" (PDF). Perspective Planning Division,Planning Commission.

 

[vii] "Report of the Expert Group to Recommend the Detailed Methodology for Identification of Families Living Below Poverty Line in the Urban Areas" (PDF). Planning Commission.

 

[viii] “Rangarajan’s Measure of Poverty”, EPW, Vol XLIX, No 31, August 2, 2014

[ix] Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Measurement of Poverty. Planning Commission, Government of India. (2014). http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/pov_rep0707.pdf

 

 

 

If He Rapes Like an Adult He Should be Punished Like an Adult: why the mentality around the new juvenile law needs a serious rethinking

The Union Cabinet on August 6, 2014 cleared the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014

Photo Source: The Alternative

that gives powers to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide if a juvenile above 16 years, involved in heinous crimes like rape, would be tried in an adult court. The Bill comes in at a time when there has been public outrage over the fact that the minor convicted in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case was handed a three-year term in a reform home by the Juvenile Justice Board.

The public has been made to believe by media and certain sections of the political leadership that the juvenile was the most brutal and indeed responsible for Nirbhaya’s death. However, the facts in this case have been completely overshadowed by false media reporting and backed by a political agenda that seeks to encash on misdirected public anger.

The juvenile justice board in its confidential order on August 31, 2013 deprecated the "media hype" over the minor's role in the said case. The board's order made it clear that in their testimonies, neither Nirbhaya nor her male friend singled out the juvenile as the person who had brutally assaulted her with a rod, resulting in an injury that led to her death within a fortnight. In fact the board asserted that the juvenile himself had been "brutalized" by the media portrayal of him as the most brutal assailant of Nirbhaya.

Not surprisingly, neither the media nor political leaders are in a haste to take the correct facts to the public. The media in fact has taken very few steps to rectify its stance.

It is also imperative to make it clear that even in cases where a juvenile commits a crime which is identical to an adult crime, he/she cannot be treated in the same manner as an adult.

 To quote eminent neuroscientist Laurence Steinberg, “I have argued that adolescents should be viewed as inherently less responsible than adults, and should be punished less harshly than adults, even when the crimes they are convicted of are identical”.

Simply because a 17 year old looks and acts like an adult, he should not be penalized in the adult criminal system. Physical changes coupled with adult actions and mental maturity to regulate those actions are two different things. Also, contrary to public opinion, a boy who is 17 years and 11 months old is not as mature as an adult. As neuroscience and psychology explain the structural and functional changes that occur during adolescence do not all take place at a uniform pace.

 There are many who argue that drawing a line at 18 years is also treading along a slippery slope as the brain is in development stages till the age of 25. However, if at all a line is to be drawn it is better to keep 18 as the age at which we consider an individual to be an adult. An individual in India who is 17 years and 364 days would not be given the right to vote, and similarly should not be tried under the adult criminal system.

While the public is baying for “strong action”, theirs is an emotional reaction. That the law makers are giving into these emotions by enacting an ill fitted new law, is a step that is regressive and ill conceived. India moved from penal law to reformative law by repealing the 1989 juvenile law and enacting the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000. By enacting the new law, we will victimize juveniles who could not be ‘cared for and protected by’ their families, the society and the government system.

 

 

Divashri Mathur

Why India Needs an Alternative Development Policy Frame?

Beyond GDP

Photo Credit: OSHO NEWS

As Indian economic policy experiments have passed through the phases of Nationalisation to liberalisation to inclusion across the timeline of more than sixty years since independence, the citizens of the country have shared the fruits and have bore the brunt in various ways. India has made enormous economic progress with conventional indicator like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but has failed to improve the quality of life en mass. Such progress has created enclaves of opportunities but neglected the masses. Inequality and its complex proliferation is the foremost challenge in India now, which constantly provokes the idea of an alternative development instrument.

 GDP the most widely followed metric assesses the performance of an economy, simply by measuring the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. It takes into account the growth of commercial and economic activities but cannot capture the pertinent issues of assessing overall well-being of a country. Attempts are therefore increasingly being made across the world to look beyond GDP for an alternative measure to assess the well-being of a nation through a multi-dimensional approach like creating access to resources; reducing hunger, poverty and inequality, and imbibing distributive justice. These can change the lives of millions by ensuring opportunities, economic freedom and social harmony.

 Alternative Approaches

Reducing inequalities and subsequent conflicts amongst people is one of the major challenges in the world today. Way back in 1972, the small Asian nation, Bhutan had introduced Gross National Happiness (GNH), an alternative to GDP with four pillars of good governance, sustainable socio-economic development, cultural preservation and environmental conservation. In 1990, another alternative to GDP that is Human Development Index (HDI) was pioneered by two Asian thinkers Mahbu bul Haq and Amartya Sen, which incorporates health and education along with income. In the year 2008, when French president Nicholas Sarzoky looked for next alternative to GDP, a revolutionary report was brought out with emphasis on social progress.The report emphasizes on quality of life and sustainability along with classical GDP. In the following year in 2009 another study made by a group of scholars from World Bank on ‘Measuring Inequality of Opportunity in Latin America and Caribbean’, emphasises Human Opportunity Index to measure inequality in opportunities in basic services. The idea was inspired by the social welfare function proposed by Sen in 1976 and holds that in development process, society needs an equitable supply of basic opportunities and people need access to these opportunities, with a target of universalism. Sen’s powerful idea of Capability Approach in 1980s also has widened the scope of development theory with emphasis on quality of life and removing the obstacles to achieve more freedom to choose.

 

To evolve development policies with such ideas of progressive economy with centrality on human wellbeing, a country needs fair political democracy, which was realized by the visionaries of newly born India and was reflected in the constitution of India in 1950 emphasising the three core values of justice, freedom and equality for citizens in India. Democracy, which is synonymous with individual sovereignty and equality, has a causal relationship with progressive economic development. It is being empirically tested that democratic institutes have net positive effect on progressive economic development, the later is perceived as a process of transition for a better living taking place along a continuum of ever-changing ideas and ethos in the life of a nation or society.But in many practicing democracy like India, economic elites mostly manage to retain disproportionate influence, and preserve the profit-seeking anti-poor biases and distort the idea of democracy. This denies social justice, tends to deprive many and excludes the voices of the marginalized. This is primarily because the practicing development policiesis mostly a conventional post war western idea and premised on rational individual, capital formation and inequality. Such economic development which necessarily influences political discourse tends to create chaos and denies egalitarian frame, and thus democracy tends to function non-optimally. To attend a causal relationship between economic development and democracy, the existing development model needs a revisit incorporating voice, representation and rights.

Way Forward

With the recent change in political regime in 16^thLokSabha election, India is expected to see some major policy shifts towards stronger market-oriented and liberal frame to push GDP growth rates. This may boost the economy, making the rich richer, but also has probability of increasing marginalization of small voiceless communities. The erstwhile govt. has made tremendous attempt to protect many such communities through path-breaking right based policies, as rights are the channels of resistance. To ensure long term sustainable development, such emphasis on policies with an institutional frame is crucial, which alone can bring social change in India. The policy instruments of new political representation needs to continue to evolve within such inclusive frame, which alone can ensure redistribution, enhance social justice and enable economic autonomy and well-being of every section of the society. Political democracy therefore needs to create space through debates and dialogues for alternative development policy initiatives, which can make ways for every individual to live with dignity and freedom, and can encounter divides and disparities in the society.

 

Rakhee Bhattacharya

 

 

Urbanisation Trend in India and its Policy Challenges

Photo Source: Ace Geography

Global evidence, especially from developed nations, indicates that industrialisation and urbanisation accompany each other (Bairoch 1988). It was expected that the 1991 liberalization reforms, by paving way for greater industrialization, would trigger urbanisation in India just like the 1980 reforms did in China. However, India’s urbanisation post liberalization has been termed as below normally ‘expected’. This could partly be attributed to the rise of high-tech and specialised industries in metropolitan cities that were labour-light as against the expected growth of labour intensive manufacturing sector.

However, post 2001 India witnessed greater private investment in areas such as industries, information technology, services sector and infrastructure. This has been reflected in rising share in non-agricultural industries in the GDP since 2001. The increased investment largely flowed into urban areas and triggered the much delayed urbanization phenomenon. This has added 90 million people to India’s urban areas in 2011 over last decade. (Census 2011, 2001 report). A McKinsey Report (2010) on India’s urbanisation prospects  projects that during the period 2010-2030, urban India will create 70 percent of all new jobs in India. The labour-intensive manufacturing, construction, and services are further expected to drive greater migration to India’s urban areas as per various projections (HPEC Report). Population estimates show that another 55 million will be added to India’s urban areas by 2021 and another 100 million by 2026. At this pace, India’s urban population will exceed its rural population by 2045.

These statistics highlight that India is at a critical juncture where its traditionally rural characteristic, best captured by Gandhi’s observation “true India lies in its seven lakh villages”, is set to undergo a historic transformation. This rapid urbanisation couldn’t have come at a more crucial time. With 69 percent of India’s 1.2 billion people expected to be between the ages of 15 and 65 by 2035, India needs to create enough productive employment opportunities to reap the benefits of this demographic windfall. World over, urban areas tend to be invariably more productive due to economies of agglomerations. In line with this trend, McKinsey’s report not only estimated that Urban India will create 70 percent of all new jobs but also that these jobs would be twice as productive when compared to rural employment opportunities. With urbanization poised to play a crucial role in India’s growth it is imperative that policy makers and urban planners embrace this phenomenon by gearing policies towards accommodating and facilitating this transformation with proper social protection and due rights to its people.

 
Contemporary Challenges
 

India so far fares poorly in most of the elements of a successful urban development strategy including land use, affordable housing, transportation, access to basic services like water and sanitation and social security. The following sub-section delve into policy distortions that are hindering economic and spatial transformation in India.

 
 
Urban Housing

Restrictive land use policy and high property prices have given rise to ‘shelter poverty’ in the form of slum and pavement dwellers. One estimate (World Bank Report)) suggests that 25 percent of urban population in India resides in slums and the figure escalates to a staggering 54 percent for Greater Mumbai. As cities expand, policymakers need to develop an inclusive urban design which provides low income housing to economically weaker sections (EWS) of society. Related to this is the problem of rigid land use policy. Floor Space Index (FSI) limits in India have historically been set way below international standards thus hindering urban densification and making the process of urban expansion expensive. In actual practise low FSI restrictions also encourage illegal construction. Thus current land use policies fail to reflect market realities and socio-economic demands.

 

Mobility
 

Easy mobility and an efficient transport system are essential for successful urbanisation. From 1951 to 2004, road network had expanded only 8 times while vehicle numbers have increased by 100 times. Thus limited road carrying capacity has increased journey times in India’s mega cities by more than 30 percent compared to smaller cities (World Bank 2013). Further, public transportation which is the only form of mobility for the poor accounts for a mere 22 percent of the urban transport system; a figure much below the average 40 - 50 percent observed in other middle income countries (World Bank 2013). Public transportation in Indian cities is also one of the most unaffordable in the world with Mumbai’s cost being twice of London and five times that of New York.
 

Sanitation

 

To make cities liveable it is essential that they be clean and have reliable water supply. In Indian cities, it is a common sight to see slum dwellers stand in long queues to fill buckets of water whenever there is intermittent water supply; this involves an economic trade-off between going to work and accessing an essential necessity like water which the poor cannot afford. Further, poor waste water management leads to an annual expenditure of nearly $15 billion to treat water-borne diseases (CII and CEEW 2010).

Urban areas by their very nature of large population and high density are susceptible to adverse effects of poor sanitary conditions. According to the HPEC report nearly 50 million people in urban India are forced to defecate in the open due to a combination of poor sewerage network, shortage of public toilets and lack of running water in toilets. Further, there are spatial disparities in access to services such as drainage and sewerage which tend to worsen as one moves towards the suburbs and as the size of the city reduces.
 

Governance
 

The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 led to decentralization of powers through the constitution of urban local bodies (ULBs) as ‘institutions of self-government’. This was aimed at strengthening urban service delivery. However, in practice, this decentralization has not progressed as envisaged. ULBs are plagued by partial devolution of power, inadequate finances and limited capacity.

 

The Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) of 2005 which was supposed to be a game changer for pan India urban development has failed to implement many infrastructure projects because of abysmal capacity of personnel at local government level in preparing and implementing projects (Planning Commission). Also, funds released under JNNURM show insignificant correlation to poverty levels in a city in addition to a bias towards big cities (Kundu and Samanta, 2012).
 

Safety and Security

 

     Cities that attract economic power and foster growth also spawn crime, violence & and an overall sense of insecurity. Today’s cities face a wide spectrum of threats ranging from terrorism to rising crime rates, civil unrests, shootings, natural disasters and other emergencies. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the rate of incidences of crime (cognizable offenses under IPC) has seen a major upward trend. Foremost among these is rape, the number of incidences of which has risen by 873% since 1953. It is followed by kidnapping and abduction (749%) and murder (250%). The impetus for urban growth will depend much upon India’s ability to sustain its homeland security.

 

To prove well prepared against these threats there is growing demand for cities to be equipped with new and emerging technologies that can ensure safe and secure cities. Security experts propose that government strategies need to move beyond enhancing its defence preparedness against crimes and acts of terror to provide integrated public security infrastructure solutions which should include real time visual, audio and location-based information.

 

 Strengthening Policy Making Processes and Outcome

Remarkably, India has not updated its definition of “urban” in 50 years leading to a downward bias on India’s urban statistics. Therefore even though some areas might display urban features, the stringent definition of “urban” would exclude these settlements from urban statistics, hindering the integration of fast expanding peri-urban areas through good urban planning (World Bank 2011). Further, the data pool on housing is characterised by poor timeliness, coverage and inaccuracy; this has serious implications for making effective policies and fund disbursement.

Indian cities and towns lack basic amenities and services because the paradigm of urban planning in India has mostly focused on providing investment and infrastructure without adequately addressing concerns of governance and service delivery. The institution of urban governance is compromised by multiplicity of agencies, fragmented and often overlapping authority without adequate coordination and lack of accountability. Undoubtedly, urban governance needs major policy reforms.

As urban population is likely to increase by at least 250 million by 2030, it is expected that the number of urban poor will rise too (Planning Commission). Modern planning has failed to include the concerns of the poor who provide much needed unskilled and semi-skilled services to support skill based activity and capital. The process of urban planning must be inclusive and cater to housing and transport needs of the poor and not just be a technical and dehumanized exercise in urban design. Such an exercise must reflect the voice of all the affected stakeholders in an urban setting.

Twenty first century India is increasingly marked by inequality, political unrest and environmental degradation. Considering contemporary challenges the objective of Indian urban policy must be redefined to help cities steer towards economically, socially, politically and environmentally sustainable and not just be limited to mere provision of public services and infrastructure.

The process of framing urban policy in India so far has adapted a top down approach despite laws contrary to that. It does not have a mechanism to involve the voice of stakeholders in its formulation. In addition to this democratic-deficit, India’s approach towards urban policy is characterised by a failure to make use of sound statistical and scientific evidence. These factors combined with less than robust implementation mechanisms and weak accountability structures have resulted in nearly a complete breakdown in the functioning of Indian cities. Reforming and strengthening the foundation of urban policy making process will foster formulation of comprehensive urban policies capable of nurturing inclusive progress.

In its ‘Approach to the 12th five year plan’ the Planning Commission of India said, “it took nearly forty years (1978 to 2008) for India’s urban population to rise by 230 million. It could take only half the time to add the next 250 million. If not well managed, this inevitable increase in India’s urban population will lead to an implosion of urban infrastructural systems”. Undoubtedly, this is a challenge that cannot be ignored at policy level.

 

Karishma Mutreja

                                                           

The Idea of Process of Public Policy Making in India

Three years after independence India became a Republic in 1950 by adopting a Constitution which emphasise worldly principles for civilised society. According to economists Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen “India was the first non-Western country – and also the first poor country in the world – to commit itself to a resolutely democratic way of governance.”

It has been over 66 years after Independence yet the core structure of ways and means which attributes to the process of public policy making has not been fixed despite the fact that the Constitution of India lays-down broad framework for such processes. This is true both at Union government level as well as State/UT government level. In India, the key decision makers involved directly in the process of public policy making are: (i) political representatives/elected representatives; (ii) bureaucrats and technocrats; and (iii) the constitutional bodies/agencies. At functional level, all these three are at silos as far as the public policy decision making is concerned! But constitutionally they are not.

Unlike the factor of Time which dynamically unfolds almost constantly among the forces, the process to make public policy have not been changed in the last six decades at least,  for two reasons: the understanding and commitment of the political and elected representatives about the constitutional process of public policy making has been by and large unmoved from the time of colonial rule. Secondly, the chaotic structure of the  executives/bureaucratic set ups for administrative power to engage with the core business of public policy making has been moved away from what is emphasized in the Indian Constitution and continues to practice the wild of its own course to make policies which produce outcomes that are neither here nor there.

In other words, the voices of people have been suppressed by these two groups and thus, the twin objective of true democratic governance system embedded in transparency and accountability has been undermined in the process of public policy decision making. However, it has been rightly seen that the performance of the constitutional bodies/agencies performed relatively better than the two other functionaries of the governance system. However, the supply side problems in the constitutional bodies/agencies are yet to be fixed to further its constitutional commitments for effectiveness.

What constitutes the present structure of process of public policy making in India at Union government level? The idea of change proposal comes from top leadership. Typically two types of people are engaged in it. The first one is the bureaucrats who along with few technocrats devise the broad framework for public policy making in a given area. Though, there are Official Guidelines (prepared and approved by bureaucrats themselves with the help of elected representatives!) issued by the Cabinet Secretariat for preparing a public policy in the Union government. Once the bureaucrats do their role as administrative process in terms of conceptualising the idea for policy change proposed and prepare the material in a particular format and share it with other line government agencies which include the Union/State government Ministries/Departments for their comments/views, if any, and once received modify them into a structure which suits both or find middle path! Thereafter, the draft policy is send to the elected representatives for consideration, debate and approval. The matter ends there, and often the draft policy goes back and forth between the bureaucrats and the elected representatives for all kinds of reasons which are unknown to the people of the country because it’s “Secret”.

Any country which has adopted strong committed liberal democratic form of governance unlikely to follow these shoddy systems for public policy making. Moreover, why liberal democracy like India not embarrassing the democratisation of public policy decision making? Being a vibrant liberal democracy why only it relies on consensus building method alone? Why not take the process of public policy making to the people at large? These are the vital questions which need to be emphasised for improving the quality of public policy making. Given the massive policy paralysis that took badly on the functions of Parliament in recent years, some perceptive foundation is being made in India to think-through seriously about the democratisation of process of public policy decision making. There are two interesting analyses which are pertinent and noteworthy:

·         Quite interestingly, Shishir Priyadarshi had studied the Indian agriculture sector in view of WTO negotiations on various aspects of trade policies. Her main tool for analysis was how far the Democratization of Decision-Making Process involved in the negotiations. She examined the manner in which the negotiating proposal was finalized, the consultations that were undertaken and the actual decision-making process that led to the submission of the proposal. In her study she carefully studied the key stakeholders involved/not involved in the process: (farmer, civil society, academic institutions & think tanks, state governments, industry, etc. This would be a classic case for taking the idea of public policy process of decision making further in India.

·         According to Arun Maira “Obtaining consensus is a big challenge in all democracies, as the US's recent experience attests. It is even more difficult in India. However, the challenge cannot be avoided. Therefore, participants in policymaking in India must learn and apply techniques of faster, consultative decision-making.” He further, argues rightly so that in the case of India, “Policy reform… requires more attention to the building of the process by which the ongoing involvement of stakeholders, mobilisation of resources and actions, and monitoring of process is done, than to the content of a single policy announcement.”

These are all very insightful debate and needs to be carried forward with more constructive focus as far as the democratization of public policy decision making is concerned.

B.Chandrasekaran

Defining India’s NRMB

Calling Indian democracy as a simply vote making drama does not serve enough beyond a point and it’s too naïve if any one does it more than twice in an unprecedented situation like where India is now! For mulling over an idea that will set a new paradigm shift for constructive public discourse, it is necessary to define a new phrase for developmental polity which will encompass sentiments of crores of fellow citizens. In the past, the defining moment has never been taken as granted and there is no exception either now especially when the general elections are due. In a vast country like India-whether you like it or not-the dynamic transitions of various phrases of developmental polity is an extremely interesting phenomena to understand the disjunctions that exist between people and polity and social, economic and cultural narratives in between them.

The fountainhead of any new phrase of polity has to encompass the realities of the living conditions of citizens and common man of that country. The new phrase has to deal with the three pillars: political, economic and social dimensions of the citizens and common man’s life and aspirations which have dynamically shifted upwards most recently and first time since the independence. How far the new phrase of polity captures and reflects the hearts and minds of the citizens and common man actually helps in shaping up of the ultimate aims of another path breaking milestone in the history of developmental polity. In fact, who does it better ultimately reaps the fruits of the winning elections and transforming the country.

In the era of Jawaharlal Nehru, the hard currency of polity was to instill the faith of democratic form of governance and sent strong messages across world. During Indira Gandhi’s period, the focal point of polity was to establish social dimension of developmental polity- Garibi Hatao and nationalization of banks etc. Thereafter, the country did not see any credible trend setter in the developmental polity phrases due to the very nature of fragmented polity. The 80s and 90s had become pre- and post reform periods typically linked with connecting Indian economy to the world economy. The first decade of 21^st century did witness some new phrases of developmental polity but the phrase used in the first half of the decade (Shining India) did not gain much attraction as compared to the phrase of the second half (Inclusive Growth).  Hence, India is again at the cross road of the world to make its position debunked and pave new path.

 Against this background, it is really delighting that the time has come to see another trend setter yet excitingly new phrase of developmental polity. The Indian National Congress seems to be pondering over the possibility of coining a new phrase for developmental polity. After carefully studying the politico, economic and social dimensions of the Indian society, the party has decided to take up the term called “Not rich, not-middle class, not BPL” or NRMB as a key strategy for the upcoming elections.

India is home for nearly 122 crore people. The NRMB categories consist about 70 crore people. 70 crore estimate seems to be based on the assumption of per person per month minimum earning of Rs.1,000 as the threshold for poverty which is in line with the official poverty line which is around Rs.960 a month. Further, those who earn between Rs.1,000 to Rs.15,000 are the main junk of the population covered under 70 crore NRMB segment. The BPL population is pegged at 36 crore and the middle class, assuming Rs.1 lakh per person per month as a cut off, is around 16 crore.

The middle class benefits most of its needs directly from liberalisation and is not affected by any shocks like economic, social and political in nature at any point of time in a year. Therefore, the Congress’s key target seems to be the NRMB segments which are just above the poverty line but way below the middle class and not rich certainly. About 34 NRMB segments have been identified including daily wagers, painters, construction workers, carpenters, farm labourers, domestic workers, street vendors, railway porters, fishermen, security guards, weavers, plantation workers, dabbawalas, etc. to give attention for understanding their problems and issues and solve them in coming years.

Most of the NRMB segments are increasingly becoming more and more vulnerable in different parts of the country and nobody seems to be working with them to lift them out of their misery. In fact, most of these segments are facing varied difficulties in terms of lifting their life beyond the BPL level because their voices are not taken into consideration in public policy decision making process. Indeed, these segments are what development experts call union-less people thereby voices-less community. Thus, the time has come for this segment to raise their voice and move upward in the society to live a meaningful life.

 

B.Chandrasekaran