Recent data on Poverty in India

Below Poverty Line Population in (%)

Survey Year          Rural   Urban  Total

1993-94                       50.1       31.8       45.3

2004-05                       41.8        25.7      37.2

2009-10                       33.8        20.9      29.8

 States

Poverty ratio in Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Uttarakhand has declined by about 10 percentage points more.

In Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland, poverty in 2009-10 has increased.

Some of the bigger states such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh have shown only marginal decline in poverty ratio, particular in rural areas. States with high incidence of poverty are Bihar at (53.5 per cent), Chhattisgarh (48.7 per cent), Manipur (47.1 per cent), Jharkhand (39.1), Assam (37.9 percent) and Uttar Pradesh (37.7 per cent)

Social Groups

In rural areas, Scheduled Tribes exhibit the highest level of poverty (47.4%), followed by Scheduled Castes (SCs), (42.3%), and Other Backward Castes (OBC), (31.9%), against 33.8% for all classes.

In urban areas, SCs have Head Count Ratio of 34.1% followed by STs (30.4%) and OBC (24.3%) against 20.9% for all classes. In rural Bihar and Chhattisgarh, nearly two-third of SCs and STs are poor, whereas in state such as Manipur, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh the poverty ratio for these groups is more than half.

Religious Groups

Sikhs have lowest Head Count Ratio in rural areas (11.9%) whereas in urban areas, Christians have the lowest proportion (12.9%) of poor. In rural areas, the Head Count Ratio for Muslims in very high in states such as Assam (53.6%), Uttar Pradesh (44.4%), West Bengal (34.4%) and Gujarat (31.4%). In urban areas poverty ratio at all India level in highest for Muslims (33.9%). Similarly, for urban areas the poverty ratio is high for Muslims in states such  as Rajasthan (29.5%), Uttar Pradesh (49.5%), Gujarat (42.4%), Bihar (56.5%) and West Bengal (34.9%)

Occupational Categories

Nearly 50% of agricultural labourers and 40% of other labourers are below the poverty line in rual areas, whereas in urban areas, the poverty ratio for casual labourers is 47.1%. Those in regular wage/salaried employment have the lowest proportion of poor. In the agriculturally prosperous state of Haryana, 55.9% agricultural labourers are poor, wheareas in Punjab t is 35.6%. The HCR of casual labourers in urban areas is very high in Bihar (86%), Assam (89%), Orissa (58.8), Punjab (56.3%), Uttar Pradesh (67.6%) and West Bengal (53.7%).

Highlights

1. Only about 46% of household have toilet facilities
2. As per the Household Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2009-10, 29.9 per cent of the population is under BPL
3.  Rural poverty declined by 8 percentage points, urban poverty down by 4.8 per cetn
4.  Poverty has gone up in the north-eastern States of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland
5.  Bihar has the highest incidence of poverty at 53.5 per cent.
6.  Among social groups in the rural areas, Scheduled Tribes (47.4 per cent) suffer the highest level of poverty.
7.  Among social groups in the urban areas, Scheduled Castes (34.1 per cent)suffer the highest level of poverty.
8.  Among religious groups in the rural areas, Sikhs have the lowest level of poverty at 11.9 per cent
9.  Among religious groups in the urban areas, Christians have the lowest level of poverty at 12.9 per cent
10.  Both in rural and urban areas, Muslims have a high level of poverty ranging from 29 per cent to 53 per cent
11. Just 32% of households use treated water for drinking
12. About 17% of the households still fetch drinking water from a source located more than 500 m in rural areas 100 m in urban areas
13. About 11% more households have got access to electricity between the years 2001 and 2011.
14. About 45% households owns a cycle which remains the primary mode of transportation. 

• Poverty - Types and Indicators

1. Poverty can be of different types like absolute poverty and relative poverty. There may be many other classifications like urban poverty, rural poverty, primary poverty, secondary poverty and many more. Whatever be the type of poverty, the basic reason has always been lack of adequate income. Here comes the role of unemployment behind poverty.

   Lack of employment opportunities and the consequential income disparity bring about mass poverty in most of the developing and underdeveloped economies of the world.

   Absolute Poverty

   Poverty is usually measured as either absolute or relative poverty (the later being actually an index of income inequality). Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries.

   The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty as less than $ 2 a day (but note that a person or family with access to subsistence resources, e.g. subsistence farmers, may have low cash income without a correspondingly low standard of living - they are not living on their cash income but using it as a top up). It estimates that in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption level below 1$ a day and 2.7$ billion lived on less than $2 a day.

   Relative Poverty

   Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context, hence relative poverty is a measure of income inequality. Usually, relative poverty is measured as the percentage of population with income less than some fixed proportion of median income. There are several other income inequality metrics, for example for Gini coefficient or the Theil Index.

   Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates in several developed countries. As such these poverty statistics  measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. The measurements are usually based on a person's yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on 'economic distance' a level of income is set at 60% of the medial household income. 

   Multidimensional Poverty Index

   The multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) was developed in 2010 ny Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and the United Nations Development Program. The MPI is an index of acute multidimensional povety. It reflects deprivations in very rudimentary services and core human functioning for people across 104 countries. Although deeply constrained by data limitations, MPI reveals a different pattern of poverty than income poverty, as it illuminates a different set of deprivations.

   The MPI has three dimensions - health, education, and standard of living. These are measured using ten indicators. Each dimension and each indicator within a dimension is equally weighted.

   
   

   These 10 indicators are used to calculate the MPI:

   Education (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/6)

   • Years of Schooling - Deprived if no household member has completed five years of schooling.
   • Child Enrollment - Deprived if any school aged child is not attending school in years 1 to 8.

   
   

   Health (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/6)

   • Child Mortality - Deprived if any child has died in the family
   • Nutrition - Deprived if any adult or child for whom there is nutritional information is malnourished.

   
   

   Standard of Living (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/18)

   • Electricity - Deprived if the household has no electricity.
   • Sanitation - Deprived if they do not have an improved toilet or if their toiled is shared (MDG Definition).
   • Drinking Water - Deprived if the household does not have access to clean drinking water or clean water is more than 30 minutes walk from home (MDG Definition).
   • Floor - Deprived if the household has dirt, sand or dung floor.
   • Cooking Fuel - Deprived if they cook with wood, charcoal or dung.
   • Assets - Deprived if the household does not own more than one of radio, TV, telephone, bike or motorbike.

   
   

   A person is considered poor if they are deprived in at least 30% of the weighted indicators. The intensity of poverty denoted the proportion of indicators in which they are deprived.

Poverty - Types and Indicators

Poverty can be of different types like absolute poverty and relative poverty. There may be many other classifications like urban poverty, rural poverty, primary poverty, secondary poverty and many more. Whatever be the type of poverty, the basic reason has always been lack of adequate income. Here comes the role of unemployment behind poverty.

Lack of employment opportunities and the consequential income disparity bring about mass poverty in most of the developing and underdeveloped economies of the world.

Absolute Poverty

Poverty is usually measured as either absolute or relative poverty (the later being actually an index of income inequality). Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries.

The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty as less than $ 2 a day (but note that a person or family with access to subsistence resources, e.g. subsistence farmers, may have low cash income without a correspondingly low standard of living - they are not living on their cash income but using it as a top up). It estimates that in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption level below 1$ a day and 2.7$ billion lived on less than $2 a day.

Relative Poverty

Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context, hence relative poverty is a measure of income inequality. Usually, relative poverty is measured as the percentage of population with income less than some fixed proportion of median income. There are several other income inequality metrics, for example for Gini coefficient or the Theil Index.

Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates in several developed countries. As such these poverty statistics  measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. The measurements are usually based on a person's yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on 'economic distance' a level of income is set at 60% of the medial household income. 

Multidimensional Poverty Index

The multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) was developed in 2010 ny Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and the United Nations Development Program. The MPI is an index of acute multidimensional povety. It reflects deprivations in very rudimentary services and core human functioning for people across 104 countries. Although deeply constrained by data limitations, MPI reveals a different pattern of poverty than income poverty, as it illuminates a different set of deprivations.

The MPI has three dimensions - health, education, and standard of living. These are measured using ten indicators. Each dimension and each indicator within a dimension is equally weighted.

These 10 indicators are used to calculate the MPI:

Education (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/6)

• Years of Schooling - Deprived if no household member has completed five years of schooling.
• Child Enrollment - Deprived if any school aged child is not attending school in years 1 to 8.

Health (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/6)

• Child Mortality - Deprived if any child has died in the family
• Nutrition - Deprived if any adult or child for whom there is nutritional information is malnourished.

Standard of Living (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/18)

• Electricity - Deprived if the household has no electricity.
• Sanitation - Deprived if they do not have an improved toilet or if their toiled is shared (MDG Definition).
• Drinking Water - Deprived if the household does not have access to clean drinking water or clean water is more than 30 minutes walk from home (MDG Definition).
• Floor - Deprived if the household has dirt, sand or dung floor.
• Cooking Fuel - Deprived if they cook with wood, charcoal or dung.
• Assets - Deprived if the household does not own more than one of radio, TV, telephone, bike or motorbike.

A person is considered poor if they are deprived in at least 30% of the weighted indicators. The intensity of poverty denoted the proportion of indicators in which they are deprived.

Government Announces New Expert Panel on Poverty Estimates

The State-wise poverty lines and poverty ratio for 2009-10 have been computed following the extant Tendulkar methodology.  Based on the said methodology the Planning Commission has released the estimates through a Press Note issued on 19th March, 2012.  As indicated in the Press Note, the poverty ratio in the country has come down from 37.2% in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10.  As a result, the number of poor persons in the country has reduced from 40.7 crore in 2004-05 to 35.5 crore in 2009-10.

The Tendulkar Committee, which submitted its Report in 2009, has incorporated adequacy of expenditure from the normative and nutritional viewpoint.  It stated “while moving away from the calorie norms, the proposed poverty lines have been validated by checking the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health by comparing them with normative expenditures consistent with nutritional, educational and health outcomes”.

Taking note of the various points of views and perspectives expressed in the public domain with respect to the need to revisit poverty estimates and related methodologies, Government has since decided to set up an Expert Technical Group to revisit the methodology for estimation of the poverty and identification of the poor.

The Technical Group comprising of eminent economists under the Chairmanship of Dr. C. Rangarajan, Chairman, Prime Minister’s Economy Advisory Council, is as under:

1.         Dr. C. Rangarajan, Chairman, Prime Minister’s

Economy Advisory Council                                …         ….        Chairman

2.         Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director, Indira

Gandhi Institute of Development Research         …         …         Member

3.         Dr. K. Sundaram, formerly Delhi School

of Economics                                                   …         …         Member

4.         Dr. Mahesh Vyas, Centre for

Monitoring Indian Economy                               …         …         Member

5.         Dr. K.L. Datta, Ex-Adviser (Perspective Planning),

Planning Commission                                        …         …         Member Convener

The Terms of Reference of the Expert Technical Group have been finalized as under:

1.         “To comprehensively review the existing methodology of estimation of poverty and examine whether the poverty line should be fixed solely in terms of a consumption basket or whether other criteria are also relevant, and if so, whether the two can be effectively combined to evolve a basis for estimation of poverty in rural and urban areas.

2.         To examine the issue of divergence between consumption estimates based on the NSSO methodology and those emerging from the National Accounts aggregates; and to suggest a methodology for updating consumption poverty lines using the new consumer price indices launched by the CSO for rural and urban areas state-wise.

3.         To review alternative methods of estimation of poverty which may be in use in other countries, including their procedural aspects; and indicate whether on this basis, a particular method can be evolved for empirical estimation of poverty in India, including procedures for updating it over time and across states;

4.         To recommend how the estimates of poverty, as evolved above, should be linked to eligibility and entitlements for schemes and programmes under the Government of India”.

Global poverty on the decline: World Bank

The rate of poverty, based on the number of people living on less than $1.5 a day, declined across the developing world between 2005 and 2008, according to a World Bank report.

Around 1.29 billion people lived below the defined poverty line in 2008, which was equivalent to 22 per cent of the population of the developing world. By contrast, 1.94 billion belonged to this extreme poverty category in 1981. The updated figures were available from surveys carried out in nearly 130 countries.

However, the nearly 663 million people who moved above the poverty line over the years are still poor by the standards of middle and high-income countries. “This bunching up just above the extreme poverty line is indicative of the vulnerability facing a great many poor people in the world. And at the current rate of progress, around one billion people would still live in extreme poverty in 2015', says Mr Martin Ravallion, Director of World Bank Research Group.

The report notes that recent post-2008 analysis revealed that global poverty overall kept falling, although food, fuel and financial crises over the past four years had sometimes sharp negative impacts on vulnerable populations and slowed down the rate of poverty reduction in some countries.

Preliminary survey-based estimates for 2010 indicated that the $1.25-a-day poverty rate had declined to under half of its 1990 value, which meant that the first Millennium Development Goal of halving the extreme poverty level from 1990 has been achieved before the 2015 deadline.

The $1.25 poverty line is the average for the world's poorest 10-20 countries. A higher $ 2-a-day line revealed less progress than the $ 1.25-a-day cut-off mark. In this case, there was only a modest drop between 1981 and 2008, from 2.59 billion to 2.47 billion.

Poverty Estimates for 2009-10

The Tendulkar Committee for the first time recommended use of implicit prices derived from quantity and value data collected in household consumer expenditure surveys for computing and updating the poverty lines. Tendulkar Committee developed a methodology using implicit prices for estimating state wise poverty lines for the year 2004-05. Using these poverty lines and distribution of monthly per capita consumption expenditure based on mixed reference period (MRP), the Tendulkar Committee estimated poverty ratios for the year 2004-05.In its Report, Tendulkar Committee recommended a methodology for updating 2004-05 poverty lines derived by it.

2.         Accordingly, implicit price indices (Fisher Price Index) have been computed from the 66^th Round NSS (2009-10) data on Household Consumer Expenditure Survey. As per Tendulkar Committee recommendations, the state wise urban poverty lines of 2004-05 are updated for 2009-10 based on price rise during this period using Fisher price indices. The state wise rural-urban price differential in 2009-10 has been applied on state specific urban poverty lines to get state specific rural poverty lines.

3.         The head count ratio (HCR) is obtained using urban and rural poverty lines which are applied on the MPCE distribution of the states. The aggregated BPL population of the states is used to obtain the final all-India HCR and poverty lines in rural and urban areas. Some of the key results are:

o       The all-India HCR has declined by 7.3 percentage points from 37.2% in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10, with rural poverty declining by 8.0 percentage points from 41.8% to 33.8% and urban poverty declining by 4.8 percentage points from 25.7% to 20.9%.

o       Poverty ratio in Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Uttarakhand has declined by about 10 percentage points and more.

o       In Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland, poverty in 2009-10 has increased.

o       Some of the bigger states such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh have shown only marginal decline in poverty ratio, particularly in rural areas.

·         Poverty ratio for Social Groups:

o       In rural areas, Scheduled Tribes exhibit the highest level of poverty (47.4%), followed by Scheduled Castes (SCs), (42.3%), and Other Backward Castes (OBC), (31.9%), against 33.8% for all classes.

o       In urban areas, SCs have HCR of 34.1% followed by STs (30.4%) and OBC (24.3%) against 20.9% for all classes.

o       In rural Bihar and Chhattisgarh, nearly two-third of SCs and STs are poor, whereas in states such as Manipur, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh the poverty ratio for these groups is more than half.

·         Among religious groups:

o       Sikhs have lowest HCR in rural areas (11.9%) whereas in urban areas, Christians have the lowest proportion (12.9%) of poor.

o       In rural areas, the HCR for Muslims is very high in states such as Assam (53.6%), Uttar Pradesh (44.4%), West Bengal (34.4%) and Gujarat (31.4%).

o       In urban areas poverty ratio at all India level is highest for Muslims (33.9%). Similarly, for urban areas the poverty ratio is high for Muslims in states such as Rajasthan (29.5%), Uttar Pradesh (49.5%), Gujarat (42.4%), Bihar (56.5%) and West Bengal (34.9%).

·         For occupational categories: 

o       Nearly 50% of agricultural labourers and 40% of other labourers are below the poverty line in rural areas, whereas in urban areas, the poverty ratio for casual labourers is 47.1%.

o       As expected, those in regular wage/ salaried employment have the lowest proportion of poor. In the agriculturally prosperous state of Haryana, 55.9% agricultural labourers are poor, whereas in Punjab it is 35.6%.

o       The HCR of casual laborers in urban areas is very high in Bihar (86%), Assam (89%), Orissa (58.8%), Punjab (56.3%), Uttar Pradesh (67.6%) and West Bengal (53.7%).

·         Based on the Education level of head of the household:

o       In rural areas, as expected, households with ‘primary level and lower’ education have the highest poverty ratio, whereas the reverse is true for households with ‘secondary and higher’ education. Nearly two third households with ‘primary level & lower’ education in rural areas of Bihar and Chhattisgarh are poor, whereas it is 46.8% for UP and 47.5% for Orissa.

o       The trend is similar in urban areas.

·         For categories by age and sex of head of the household:

o       In rural areas, it is seen that households headed by minors have poverty ratio of 16.7% and households headed by female and senior citizen have poverty ratio of 29.4% and 30.3% respectively.

o       In urban areas, households headed by minors have poverty ratio of 15.7% and households headed by female and senior citizen have poverty ratio of 22.1% and 20.0% respectively against overall poverty ratio of 20.9%.

4.                  State wise details of poverty lines for 2009-10, poverty ratios for 2009-10 and poverty ratios for 2004-05 are given in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

Click here to see Tables

New BPL norms

The Planning Commission told the Supreme Court on September 20 that anyone spending more than Rs 965 per month in urban India and Rs 781 in rural India will be deemed not to be poor. Updating the poverty line cut-off figures, the commission said those spending in excess of Rs 32 a day in urban areas or Rs 26 a day in villages will no longer be eligible to draw benefits of central and state government welfare schemes meant for those living below the poverty line.

According to the new criterion suggested by the planners, if a family of four in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore or Chennai is spending anything more than Rs 3,860 per month on its members, it would not be considered poor. It's a definition that many would find ridiculously unrealistic.

Not surprisingly, the new above the poverty line definition has already created outrage among activists, who feel it is just a ploy to artificially depress the number of poor in India. The plan panel said these were provisional figures based on the Tendulkar committee report updated for current prices by taking account of the Consumer Price Index for industrial and agricultural workers.

TOI broke down the overall monthly figure for urban areas and used the CPI for industrial workers along with the Tendulkar report figures to see what these numbers translate into and how much the Planning Commission believes is enough to spend on essential items so as not to be deemed poor.

The Planning Commission suggests that spending Rs 5.5 on cereals per day is good enough to keep people healthy. Similarly, a daily spend of Rs 1.02 on pulses, Rs 2.33 on milk and Rs 1.55 on edible oil should be enough to provide adequate nutrition and keep people above the poverty line without the need of subsidized rations from the government. It further suggests that just Rs 1.95 on vegetables a day would be adequate. A bit more, and one might end up outside the social security net.

People should be spending less than 44 paise on fruits, 70 paise on sugar, 78 paise on salt and spices and another Rs 1.51 on other foods per day to qualify for the BPL list and for subsidy under various government schemes. A person using more than Rs 3.75 per day on fuel to run the kitchen is doing well as per these figures. Forget about the fuel price hike and sky-rocketing rents, if anyone living in the city is spending over Rs 49.10 a month on rent and conveyance, he or she could miss out on the BPL tag.

As for healthcare, according to the Planning Commission, Rs 39.70 per month is sufficient to stay healthy. On education, the plan panel feels those spending 99 paise a day or Rs 29.60 a month in cities are doing well enough not to need any help. Similarly, one could be considered not poor if he or she spends more than Rs 61.30 a month on clothing, Rs 9.6 on footwear and another Rs 28.80 on other personal items.

The monthly cut-off given by the Planning Commission before the apex court was broken down using the Consumer Price Index of Industrial Workers for 2010-11 and the breakdown given in Annexure E of the Tendulkar report of expenditure calculated at 2004-05 prices.

New BPL norms: Rs 39 enough for medical expenditure

Updating the poverty line cutoff figures, the Planning Commission said that those spending in excess of Rs 32 a day in urban areas or Rs 26 a day in villages would no longer be eligible to draw benefits for those living below the poverty line.

TOI broke down the overall monthly figure for urban areas and used the CPI for industrial workers along with the Tendulkar committie report figures to see what these numbers translate into and how much the Planning Commission believes is enough to spend on essential items so as not to be deemed poor. The Planning Commission suggests that spending Rs 5.5 on cereals per day is good enough to keep people healthy.

Similarly a daily spend of Rs 1.02 on pulses, Rs 2.33 on milk and Rs 1.55 on edible oil should be enough to provide adequate nutrition and keep people above the poverty line without the need of subsidized rations from the government.

It further suggests just Rs 1.95 on vegetables a day would be adequate. A bit more and one might end up outside the social security net. People should be spending less than 44 paisa on fruits, 70 paisa on sugar, 78 paisa on salt and spices and another Rs 1.51 on other foods per day to qualify for the BPL list and qualify for subsidy under various government schemes.

A person using more than Rs 3.75 per day on fuel to run the kitchen is doing well as per these figures. Forget about the price hike of fuel or sky-rocketing rents in the city. If anyone living in the city is spending over Rs 49.10 a month on rent and conveyance, he or she could miss out on the BPL category.

As for healthcare, Rs 39.70 per month is felt to be sufficient to stay healthy, believes the Planning Commission . On education, the plan panel feels those spending 99 paisa a day or Rs 29.60 a month in cities are doing well enough not to need any help.

Similarly, one could be considered to not be poor if he or she spends more than Rs 61.30 a month on clothing, Rs 9.6 on footwear and Rs 28.80 on other personal items. The monthly cut-off given by the Planning Commission before the apex court was broken down using the Consumer Price Index of Industrial Workers for 2010-11 and the break down given in Annexure E of the Tendulkar Report of expenditure calculated at 2004-05 prices.

The new tentative BPL criteria was worked out by the Planning Commission and approved by the Prime Minister's office before the government's affidavit was submitted before the Supreme Court. The plan panel said the final poverty line criteria would be available after the completion of the NSSO survey of 2011-12.

Slum Population in the Country

The Minister for Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Kumari Selja has said that the first five States having largest slum population in the country as per Census 2001, are as follows:-

Sl. No.	State/UTs	Slum Population in 2001
1.	Maharashtra	11975943
2.	Andhra Pradesh	6268945
3.	Uttar Pradesh	5756004
4.	West Bengal	4663806
5.	Tamil Nadu	4240931

In a written reply in the Rajya Sabha today she said, the five metros having largest slum population in the country as per Census 2001, are as follows:-

Sl. No.	Name of the Metro	Slum Population in 2001
1.	Greater Mumbai	6475440
2.	Delhi	1851231
3.	Kolkata	1485309
4.	Chennai	819873
5.	Nagpur	737219

She said, as the Census 2011 slum figures are not available, it is not possible to indicate the growth in the slum population.

The Minister said, the existing urban planning models and urban land policies are one of the key reasons for growth of slums. The other major reasons are :-

(i)          Increased urbanization leading to pressure on the available land and infrastructure, especially for the poor.

(ii)   Natural increase in the population of urban poor and migration from rural areas and small towns to larger cities.

(iii)  Sky-rocketing land prices due to increasing demand for land and constraints on supply of land.    

(iv)  Absence of programmes of affordable housing for the urban poor in most States.

(v)    Lack of availability of credit for low income housing.

(vi)   Increasing cost of construction.

Kumari Selja said, in pursuance of the Government’s vision of creating a Slum-free India, a new scheme ‘Rajiv Awas Yojana’ (RAY) has been launched on 02.06.2011 with a budget of Rs.5,000 crores. The Scheme is expected to initially cover about 250 cities, across the entire country by the end of 12th Plan (2017). The selection of the cities will be done in consultation with the Centre. Under the Scheme, Fifty percent (50 %) of the cost of provision of basic civic and social infrastructure and amenities and of housing, including rental housing,  and transit housing for in-situ redevelopment – in slums would be borne by the Centre, including operation & maintenance of assets created under this scheme. For the North Eastern and Special Category States the share of the Centre would be 90% including the cost of land acquisition, if required.