Which of the following statements with regard to the Report of Tendulkar Committee (2009) on poverty estimates is/are correct? 1. The Committee had used an all-India urban poverty line basket as a reference to derive both rural and urban poverty levels. 2. The Committee had anchored the poverty line to the official food calorie norms. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Correct — A, 1 only. Both statements can be checked against the Expert Group's own report of November 2009. Statement 1 is exactly what it recommended: the Group decided to take the urban poverty line basket corresponding to the all-India urban headcount ratio of 25.7 per cent in 2004-05 as the new reference basket, to be made affordable to the rural as well as the urban population in every state after adjusting for rural-urban and inter-state price differences. It chose the urban basket because the rural headcount of 28.3 per cent had been heavily criticised as too low, while the urban figure was regarded as less contested. Statement 2 reverses the report's single most-quoted decision. In its own words the expert group took a conscious decision to move away from anchoring the poverty lines to a calorie intake norm, on the ground that calorie consumption computed from the survey's thirty-day recall was not well correlated with observed nutritional outcomes either over time or across states. So statement 1 stands and statement 2 falls.
- (b)2 only — Keeps the calorie anchor and throws away the urban-basket recommendation. Calorie anchoring belongs to the earlier lines — the Alagh Task Force of 1979 and the Lakdawala Expert Group of 1993 — not to Tendulkar.
- (c)Both 1 and 2 — Statement 2 contradicts the report's stated decision to move away from a calorie norm, so the two cannot both hold.
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2 — Discards a correct statement. The all-India urban poverty line basket really was adopted as the common reference for both rural and urban lines.
India's official poverty line has been redrawn by four expert bodies, and each changed the method rather than merely updating the numbers. Dandekar and Rath in 1971 worked from a daily calorie intake. The Alagh Task Force of 1979 set the first official line on calorie norms of 2,400 per capita per day in rural areas and 2,100 in urban areas. Lakdawala in 1993 kept those norms and updated state lines by price indices. Tendulkar in 2009 broke the calorie anchor, moved to a wider consumption basket and to the Mixed Reference Period for the survey recall. Rangarajan in 2014 went back to a nutrient norm, adding protein and fat to calories with a normative allowance for non-food needs.
The reliable way to answer any Tendulkar question is to remember what it broke with. Every distinguishing feature of the 2009 report is a departure — away from the calorie anchor, away from the Uniform Reference Period towards the Mixed Reference Period, and away from separate rural and urban reference baskets towards one urban basket priced differently in different places. A statement that puts Tendulkar back on the calorie norm is describing Alagh or Lakdawala. Two facts are worth carrying forward. The Tendulkar methodology produced the headcount ratio of 21.9 per cent for 2011-12, and that remains the last poverty estimate India officially adopted, because the Rangarajan Committee's revision was never accepted. Since then official attention has shifted to the National Multidimensional Poverty Index, which counts deprivations in health, education and living standards rather than a single expenditure line.
- The Expert Group reported in November 2009 under the chairmanship of Suresh Tendulkar.
- It recommended the all-India urban poverty line basket, corresponding to the 25.7 per cent urban headcount ratio of 2004-05, as the reference basket for rural and urban areas alike.
- It consciously moved away from anchoring the poverty line to a calorie intake norm.
- It adopted the Mixed Reference Period — 365 days for clothing, footwear, durables, education and institutional health, 30 days for everything else.
- Calorie anchoring at 2,400 rural and 2,100 urban belongs to the Alagh Task Force of 1979 and was retained by Lakdawala in 1993.
- Dandekar and Rath, 1971 — a line built on a daily calorie intake
- Alagh Task Force, 1979 — first official line, calorie norms of 2,400 rural and 2,100 urban
- Lakdawala Expert Group, report 1993 — same calorie norms, state-specific lines updated by price indices
- Tendulkar Expert Group, report November 2009 — calorie anchor dropped, all-India urban basket used as the common reference, Mixed Reference Period adopted
- Rangarajan Expert Group, report June 2014 — returns to a nutrient norm with calories, protein and fat, plus normative non-food expenditure; never officially adopted
Statement 2 describes the two committees before Tendulkar, which is precisely why it fails here.
- Attaching the 2,400 and 2,100 calorie norms to Tendulkar when they belong to Alagh and Lakdawala.
- Assuming the rural basket must be the reference for rural poverty — the Committee deliberately used the urban basket for both.
- Treating Rangarajan's 2014 numbers as India's official poverty estimates; the last officially adopted figures rest on Tendulkar.
Asked as a two-statement code item where one statement quotes the report correctly and the other attributes to it the very method it abandoned.
Persons below the poverty line in India are classified as such based on whether
- (a) they are entitled to a minimum prescribed food basket
- (b) they get work for a prescribed minimum number of days in a year
- (c) they belong to agricultural labourer household and the scheduled caste/tribe social group
- (d) their daily wages fall below the prescribed minimum wages
Answer(a) they are entitled to a minimum prescribed food basket
The same measure, asked before the method changed. In 1999 the official line really was built on a prescribed food basket delivering a calorie norm — which is exactly the anchor the Tendulkar Committee dropped ten years later. Reading the two together shows why a statement that is true of one decade can be false of the next.
CDS_GK_2023_I_Q242023The computation of poverty in terms of Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE) based on the Mixed Reference Period was recommended by the
- (a) Lakdawala Committee
- (b) Tendulkar Committee
- (c) Dandekar Committee
- (d) Alagh Committee
Answer(b) Tendulkar Committee
The same report, tested on a different one of its departures. That paper wanted the Mixed Reference Period; this one wants the urban reference basket and the abandoned calorie anchor. All three came from the same set of salient features in the 2009 report, so they are best learnt as one list.
CDS_GK_2023_II_Q692023Consider the following statements regarding poverty in India: 1. While determining poverty line in India, a minimum level of food requirement, clothing, footwear, fuel and light, educational and medical requirements, etc. are determined for subsistence. 2. The accepted average calorie requirement in India is 2400 calories per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories per person per day in urban areas. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) Both 1 and 2
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer(c) Both 1 and 2
Worth reading beside this item because it shows how the two ideas coexist. The 2,400 and 2,100 calorie figures remain the accepted requirement norms and CDS treats them as correct; what Tendulkar abandoned was using them as the anchor from which the poverty line itself is drawn.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The shift from the Uniform Reference Period to the Mixed Reference Period in poverty estimation was recommended by
- (a)the Alagh Task Force
- (b)the Lakdawala Expert Group
- (c)the Tendulkar Expert Group
- (d)the Rangarajan Expert Group
Answer(c) the Tendulkar Expert Group — it adopted a 365-day recall for low-frequency items and 30 days for the rest.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The calorie norms of 2,400 per capita per day for rural areas and 2,100 for urban areas were first used to fix India's official poverty line by
- (a)the Alagh Task Force, 1979
- (b)the Tendulkar Expert Group, 2009
- (c)the Rangarajan Expert Group, 2014
- (d)the NITI Aayog Task Force, 2016
Answer(a) the Alagh Task Force, 1979 — it gave India its first official poverty line, anchored purely on calorie norms.