The ‘New’ BPL & ‘Fights’ Centring BPL Issues

J Biswas

BPL: Redefine Poverty and Reduce Poverty Figure — Just That!

No one guessed that before the BJP-led NDA regime: How easy it is to reduce poverty! Researchers in this country once put their faith on National Sample Survey Org as there is an extreme poverty of somewhat reliable statistical data in India. But belittling that faith, the NSSO statisticians, in the reign of the BJP-led govt, changed their definition of poverty or in other words the ‘measure’ of poverty to satisfy their ‘employer’ i.e. the govt of India! And quickly poverty count dropped in India and in all major states that were burdened by masses of poverty-stricken people! As for example ‘poverty’ stat for WB had poverty mark reduced from almost 55-60% of the population to nearly 30% within a span of 2 years! [Footnote 1] This was simply done by taking account of ‘Monthly Per capita Consumer Expenditure’ or MPCE for past 30 days… etc and setting one MPCE grade as poverty level. Many competent statisticians and economists totally rejected the newly computed figures as baseless and the method applied as irrational. But the then BJP led govt was deaf to those criticisms. Even CPIM led governments ‘accepted’ the new norms in spite of protests by CPIM intellectuals-academicians! However, governments are still dissatisfied, and spending some sleepless nights on how to reduce further the ‘burden’ of state subsidies for the paltry breadcrumbs doled out to persons with ‘lucky’ BPL tag, the govt statisticians invented a way-out again to reduce further the number of poor!! This time the governments, including the apt and able govt of WB, sent circulars to all Panchayats, all Block [Mandal] offices and all concerned — someone not figuring in the BPL list must challenge with counter data to prove her/his worth as a poor, the counter data will be given ‘scores’ according to a given ‘Table of Scores in Various Aspects’ highlighting 12 different aspects of life with different ‘qualities’ with different scores ranging from 1 to 5; and if that person gets a score less than 33, only then s/he can claim to be a poor! It is very difficult to print a Table with of 13 rows and 7 columns, where all field are textual and not just arithmetic figures, in a magazine of this size. But we must give a picture here in order to form an idea about the difficulty in getting into the BPL list and the governments perception of what a ‘poor’ means. Suppose you depict a person as a ‘poor’. 1. Say, he got a parcel govt ‘vested’ land courtesy the media-hyped ‘land reform’ of CPIM led WB govt and that land measures one-thirtieth or one-fifteenth of an Hectare [5 or 10 kottahs], as much an average ‘lucky’ poor in WB got. But 0.03 or 0.06 Ha is surely greater than 0, and so your sampled person gets 1 mark. [Remember, a village primary school teacher or a group C govt employee with non-agricultural fixed monthly income of above Rs 5000 and having 0.93 Ha of land, cultivates his land entirely by labourers, will also get 1 mark for his land.] 2. Now that person has own mud-built kuchcha house with two rooms. So the mark obtained is 3. 3. For clothing, that poor has 2 ordinary garments and 1 old ragged blanket too for winter that he got from govt ‘charity’. Again 3 marks! 4. That fellow gets 2 square meals a day, though sometimes doesn’t get that. So add 3 marks. 5. Unluckily that person has an old cycle that runs with crunching noise and even a ‘Made In China’ FM radio worth Rs 40-60. Again 3 marks! 6. Though that person is illiterate, the maximum ‘educated’ one of that family now studies in Class 6 — again 3 marks! Lest you forget to count, your poor fellow already scored 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 16. 7. There is an adult male in the family for work, the person himself; add 3 marks. 8. That fellow works in own land, remember that 0.03 Hectare, and also works as a labourer in his village. 2 marks. 9. Educational standard of children in the family: One studies still in class 6 we know, another one not yet reached school age. Hence, there is no one to count as ‘school drop out’, therefore add 5 marks! 10. Indebtedness: No, he isn’t; who will give loans to such a family? Usurers are no fool; banks will not either, as that family has nothing to ‘mortgage’! No indebtedness! 5 marks. 11. The main earning member doesn’t go out of village to work, where such a fellow will get work outside their village! Sad! 5 marks again! 12. There is no handicapped person, no one suffering from cancer, etc diseases; neither is the ‘main’ earning member a female: again 5 marks. The total score becomes: Carry 16 + 3 + 2 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 41. But ‘41’ is far greater than the needed ‘pass mark’ of ‘33’. Hence that sample person of yours is not at all a poor!!! Then what he is? He is Above Poverty Line or APL, that person is the same as an IT professional or a trader or a Doctor, or an AMBANI or TATA, etc in the eyes of government. So that person/family is not entitled for BPL rations, neither for free general/common blood tests at a govt hospital, nor for Annapurna or Antyodaya like schemes! But you want to try hard to show that person as a ‘poor’ — so now you are saying that actually his daughter dropped out from school after class 6 and now she is helping in family work: then you can deduct 1 marks only as the girl is not hiring herself out for earning money. And then you say that person has Rs 500 as outstanding debt that he took from some neighbours for his family’s medical need: then you can deduct 4 more marks. But still that poor fellow gets 41 – 5 = 36 marks which cannot prove him to be a ‘poor’! But you keep on whining and nagging: now you’re saying: that fellow goes out to work as a contract labourer for track maintenance in the Railways with a paltry wage [about Rs 60 or $1.50 a day]; well, deduct 2 more marks. But again, 36 – 2 = 34, and still that fellow of yours fails to be a qualified ‘poor’! Just imagine: a village poor with insignificant [0.03 Ha] land, who goes out to work as a contract worker for the Railways or road-maintenance and does not get work regularly, whose kid dropped out from school after class 6 and is now helping in family work, who lives in a mud-built house with 2 ‘rooms’ [and perhaps a kitchen space] only without any electricity connection and ‘possesses’ two sets of ordinary garments, one winter-clothing, a cycle and a radio, who at times has to spent starving, semi-starving nights, who has a little bit of outstanding loan [taken for family purpose], …etc cannot qualify as a poor!!! See, how very difficult it is in India to be a ‘poor’! If only that fellow as re-described above regularly goes out from his village for working as manual agricultural-labourer, he can qualify as ‘poor’ just standing on the margin of becoming non-poor with 33 marks! The picture shown in abovementioned lines is not the most important thing that we would like to focus in this article; but we stated these [1] to acquaint readers with the ‘new’ BPL norms, and what is more [2] to reveal the brazen callousness of the govt, the governments’ offensive way to deal with ‘poverty’, their attitude of taking poverty-stricken people just as playthings! The governments by their ‘shrewd’ measures have piled a large number of poor, countless millions, in the APL list.

Regarding “Fights” on BPL Related Issues

Many a times we see some organisations known as ‘communist revolutionary’ groups or their peasants’ wings thinking of fighting on BPL related issues; also they raise ‘slogans’, try to ‘build up a mighty mass movement’ and call upon the village poor to join those movements. Before going further to see what those demands generally are let us iterate: mass movements, peoples’ struggles etc are no manufactured items that can be ‘made’ by some ‘plan’ chalked ‘from above’ — mass-movements are created by spontaneous initiative of the toiling masses themselves. A party may conduct agitation-propaganda on some issues, may do the work of ‘heating-up the soil’ or ‘preparing the soil’ as called in common parlance, by raising some ‘slogans’ they may try to focus attention; but, we are repeating again, movements/struggles are created by spontaneity of the toiling masses themselves. The toiling masses may or may not pay heed to the agitation-propaganda of that party depending on so many factors among which two vital ones are: continuity of its work among a large section of the toiling masses, particularly among working class; and helping a considerable section of the working class to become politically organised and active in their own class party. In such a situation the party’s call becomes synonymous to call of a sizeable part of the working class, a sizeable section of workers and agricultural workers that is politically organised and active in the society. Can any group demand that such a party exists now in India? The toiling masses know the answer that is negative. And this phenomenon of party-less-ness influenced the toiling masses. That influence can be seen by peculiar ‘new’ kinds of struggles and organisations that are taking place nowadays. Anyway, we were discussing slogans and agitation-propaganda of the party and masses’ response, and let us get back that context. A revolutionary party may [or should] conduct revolutionary agitation-propaganda, a revolutionary party may voice the wants within the mind of the toiling masses in a revolutionary way, i.e., not in a way that may generate petty reformist aspirations as done by propaganda of the reformist-revisionist parties. But a revolutionary party doesn’t toy with slogans just to see if that clicks or not [always assuming, albeit unknowingly, the situation is ‘ready’ for a struggle to start]; rather the party studies hard the concrete condition, try seriously to make correct assessment, and based on that assessment of present condition formulates and shapes its agitation-propaganda. The fulcrum of agitation-propaganda is always to help the masses to raise their revolutionary class-consciousness and to raise the spirit of rebellion against this system. Nothing in the name of ‘tactical’ line or measures is permitted which may harm the development of revolutionary class-consciousness or make realizations muddled. Now let us see the demands commonly raised by our ‘revolutionaries’.

We usually encounter demands like: “Make BPL Distribution Corruption-Free”, or “Publish Flawless BPL List Immediately” or “Incorporate Names Of All Poor Peoples In The BPL List” which in other way demands enlargement of BPL list by amending BPL criterion, etc. We shall not be surprised if we see them demanding: “Amend BPL Criterion to ……”, or “Increase BPL Provisions”, or “Give Correct/Full and Edible and/or Standard BPL Provisions”, or “Give More Benefits to BPL Card Holders”, etc. All these give rise to just one question: have they at all understood the basic logic of the governments behind coining the term BPL? It seems they have not. Because such slogans firstly confirms that they have accepted the ruling class’ definition of poverty, the BPL framework and the associated ‘relief’ programme, and also the whole logic of the BPL like relief-programmes. And that is why they can think out such slogans as if they are raising slogans for some struggles of ‘practical economic’ nature of village poor for a bit improvement of their living standard. We keep aside the sagacity or correctness of the very idea of “struggles of ‘practical economic’ nature of village poor” treating the village poor and the industrial proletariat at par, because that itself will be a lengthy discussion.

Why the govt coined the term BPL? Let us see in brief the history of ‘rationing’. The British first introduced ‘Rationing’ in India during 2nd World War days, starting perhaps from the ‘Bombay’ Province; and the early-PDS was governments’ response to dire scarcity of food-grains in the open market to provide food-grains at prices bearable by a large section of urban people in the 1950s. The govt jumpstarted the PDS or public distribution system mainly on two counts: [A] To pacify the poor and needy population, the bulk of which is constituted by workers and peasants, during the turbulent 1960s by setting up Food Corporation of India (FCI) and renaming ‘fair price shop’ or ‘control shop’ system as PDS; and [B] To show off its ‘welfarist’ image. From the inception of New Economic Policy in the early 1990s, from the onset of the globalisation-liberalisation-privatisation policies, much pressure was brought on all such govt measures. Dismantling all such previously operating paltry relief-measures at one stroke was difficult. So during their ‘2nd generation reforms’ they framed some stages of the pull out. Previously in PDS we had two divisions: AR and MR, two quantitative rations for citizens in cities and small suburban cum rural areas respectively, assuming city dwellers cannot get enough food provisions first-hand and so need more rations. Now, in the Globalised era, they made two different divisions: APL and BPL, two qualitative divisions for consumers depending on the purchasing capacity of the consumer, in which the later, BPL, meant below the poverty line consumers who cannot buy sufficient food grains from the open market, for whom some amount of food grains and a little kerosene were provided at a ‘subsidised’ price; and for the former category, APL, those above poverty lines, the govt may not ‘consider’ any subsidies, but as a hang-over of the past PDS era the govt is still providing them with some trivial amounts at close-to-market-price to dissuade them from using PDS altogether. The next tactic of the govt was redefining poverty so as to reduce BPL population and thus PDS subsidies too. Other ways to debar people from entering the narrow BPL circle by some other paltry reform-measures like ‘self-help’ or ‘swa-nirvarata’, ‘swa-rojgaar’ type programmes which aims at helping poor to sustain their poor life with just crossing the BPL mark as maximum achievement, and then there is the 100-days work programme giving only maximum 100 days paltry wage at piece-rate manual works (yielding much less than $2 a day) to each household that asked for it through written application and not to each able person, etc. The peddlers of Globalisation know that in spite of their much beloved ‘end of history’ the downtrodden and exploited masses may revolt, particularly with vengeance seeing the rocketing disparity of wealth and poverty naked in their own eyes in this era of Globalisation. So they were cautious, so they designed BPL even if trying to dismantle state-subsidy-regime, so they designed 100 days non-production-related job at least for a few persons in a village, so they gave Nobel Prize to Md Yunus… etc.

There is another aspect in many of these measures. It is the ‘mindset’ that is cultivated deliberately and surreptitiously by the establishment through such programmes. Yunus was really very cunning inventor indeed, he designed such a method which may get people just out of the narrowly defined ‘poverty’, but additionally, and that is the core, a ‘gem’ so to say, his method help impregnating and engraving capitalist categories like ‘profit’ within the mind of a poor toiler who from her ‘business’ gets ‘profit’ that is much less than a ‘decent’ wage! Whereas, the BPL system on the other hand, tries to engrave in and impregnate the mind of a BPL receiver a mentality of as if they are given ‘alms’, as if getting ‘charity’ at the ‘mercy’ of or ‘benevolence’ of the govt, panchayats, governmental parties … etc who actually shows their ‘generosity’ from the tax-money which ultimately is borne by the toiling masses themselves! Simultaneously, the whole system portrays that it is the bad-luck or inability of the ‘poor’ that has make her/him a poor! This is part and parcel of the BPL logic. [While judging any of the govt relief or reform measures this aspect is also to be considered.]

According to this Globalised state-subsidy standard only BPL households will get less than nutrition-necessary food grains, a little kerosene at a ‘subsidised’ price; only they will avail the ‘free’ less-than-skeletal and terrifying govt health-care system where many items are to be bought and many tests are to be done even by the BPL ‘consumer’ from market at market-price [otherwise, for a CT or MRI scan the patient will have to wait for six months in queue sometimes]; only BPL households will be considered for Indira-Abasan type ‘housing’ programmes that provide to about 5 households each year among say a 1000 households a sum of less than Rs 10,000 ($250) for house-building [!] after deductions by babu leaders etc …!!! Then, as only a section of the poverty stricken toiling masses can have the BPL as per the new [and also the old] criteria, the poor will get divided, and what is more, they will be at the mercy of the leader-member-officer clique that is in charge of distribution of the ‘priceless’ and ‘scarce’ BPL tags! This is the BPL logic, the BPL framework of relief operations. Can any ‘revolutionary’ accept this and demand fulfilment of the BPL scheme? Can any ‘revolutionary’ conducts agitation-propaganda in such a way that bolsters in the mind of the poor that very BPL logic, instils craving for paltry relief measures like BPL and does not reveal the plot named BPL, does not stir up hatred and wrath against this whole conspiracy called BPL? If they do so then that organisation can be said to be practising tail-ism of the establishment knowingly or unknowingly.

It may be argued that: in this or that locality the poor rural toilers are agitated over non-availability of scheduled BPL quantities, over corruption regarding BPL, etc, and so it is the duty of the revolutionary organisation there to see that a mass-movement is built voicing the demands of the poor…. In such a case the arguer often fails to see many other closely related things, e.g.,

[1] the dissatisfaction, wrath, anger brewing in the minds of the poor regarding exploitation, humiliation, unemployment, hunger, succumbing to moribund health due to malnutrition and non-availability of medical treatment, etc and on the top of all these the ever widening social disparity — to sum up, the ‘hell of a life’; [2] after a long period of fight-less surrendering years, after a long spell of passivity, hopelessness, confusions, disarrayed-ness the toiling masses are trying again to enter the arena of class struggle, and their desires and angers both are being expressed by them; [3] the dissatisfaction, wrath built up by getting mal-handled by the same party now in govt for which they once fought bearing so many atrocities, guarded and saved those leaders with whatever weapons in hand through so many sleepless nights, etc — this point is particular for CPIM run states especially West Bengal. All agitation and propaganda works, education-organisation works, are to be undertaken giving these pertinent points due importance. These points direct us to conduct revolutionary agitation-propaganda, and not anything that may harm the development of revolutionary consciousness, instils reformist longings. Abstractly-and-theoretically speaking, even if there were a situation where contents of these points mentioned above were absent, it is impermissible for revolutionary communists to carry on reformist propaganda emphasising slogans of paltry reforms and not exposing BPL as a trifling relief, a dangerous trap fitted by the ruling class to placate a section of poverty stricken toiling masses and a cushioning tool to save the System, the Reign of the ruling classes. BPL is government’s mockery in the name of alleviating poverty, it is a silly and cruel joke, and so it deserves a resounding rebuttal and remonstration in the agitation-propaganda of the revolutionaries covering any or all of BPL related issues.
[1] “If we look into the poverty-statistics of WB, we’ll find that in ’93-’94, 40.8% of the rural population was under the poverty line (i.e., who can not afford a per capita per day food intake equivalent to 2400 Calories) In the year ’98 that figure increased to 58.3%. The governments (both of the state and the union) didn’t like these figures. To please them able statisticians changed the way poverty is to be measured, and to their pleasure, found that poverty has decreased suddenly within a year or so, in 1999-2000 the rural poor were only 31.85%.” From: West Bengal’s Villages & Panchayati Raj…

go to top

Home Page >> Workers & Peasants struggle >> The New BPL & Fights Centring BPL Issues