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.

1. Basics of Poverty: Absolute vs. Relative (basic)

Poverty is more than just a lack of money; it is a state of deprivation where an individual lacks the resources to meet basic needs. In economics and policy-making, we generally categorize it into two fundamental types: Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty. Understanding this distinction is the first step toward understanding how governments design welfare schemes. Absolute Poverty refers to a fixed standard of living that does not change over time, except for adjustments to account for inflation. It is a 'survival threshold' based on the minimum physical items required for a subsistence level of existence. To calculate this, economists estimate a minimum consumption basket—including food grains, milk, vegetables, and basic non-food items like clothing and shelter—and convert them into a monetary value at current market prices Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Terminology, p.453. If a person's income or expenditure falls below this 'Poverty Line,' they are considered absolutely poor, regardless of how much wealth others in the country might have Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain, Contemporary Socio-Economic Issues, p.15. In contrast, Relative Poverty is a measure of inequality rather than survival. It defines poverty in relation to the average economic standard of a particular society. For instance, even if a person has enough to eat and a roof over their head, they may be considered 'relatively poor' if their income is significantly lower than the median income of their community. While absolute poverty is the primary focus in developing nations like India to ensure basic survival, developed nations often use relative poverty to measure social exclusion and the gap between the rich and the poor Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.31.

Feature	Absolute Poverty	Relative Poverty
Definition	Inability to meet basic biological and physical needs.	Status of having significantly less than the average citizen.
Benchmark	A fixed Poverty Line (e.g., spending less than ₹100/day).	The standard of living of the surrounding population.
Primary Focus	Survival and subsistence.	Income distribution and social inequality.

Sources: Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Terminology, p.453; Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain, Contemporary Socio-Economic Issues, p.15; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.31

2. Evolution of Poverty Estimation: Alagh & Lakdawala (intermediate)

To understand how India measures poverty, we must go back to the 1970s when the focus shifted from vague ideas of 'subsistence' to scientific nutritional requirements. The Alagh Committee (1979), headed by Y.K. Alagh, was a pioneer in this regard. It constructed a poverty line based on the monetary value of a specific food basket that provided a minimum daily calorie intake. Recognizing the different physical demands of lifestyles, it set the requirement at 2400 calories for rural areas and 2100 calories for urban areas Economics, Class IX NCERT (Revised ed 2025), Poverty as a Challenge, p.32. The logic was simple: rural residents engaged in more strenuous physical labor and thus needed more 'fuel' to survive and work.

Building on this foundation, the Lakdawala Committee (1993) introduced a more nuanced approach to tracking inflation and regional differences. While it maintained the calorie norms established by Alagh, it realized that a single national poverty line was insufficient because prices varied significantly across states. The Lakdawala method introduced state-specific poverty lines and utilized specific price indices to update them: the Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers (CPI-AL) for rural areas and the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) for urban areas. This ensured that the poverty line reflected the actual cost of living in different parts of India.

Feature	Alagh Committee (1979)	Lakdawala Committee (1993)
Primary Focus	Calorie-based nutritional norms.	Price-index-based updates and regional variation.
Calorie Norms	Rural: 2400; Urban: 2100.	Maintained the same 2400/2100 norms.
Price Indexing	Used a national deflator.	State-specific; used CPI-AL (Rural) and CPI-IW (Urban).

Sources: Economics, Class IX NCERT (Revised ed 2025), Poverty as a Challenge, p.32; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania (ed 2nd 2021-22), Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.38-40

3. Measuring Inequality: Gini & Lorenz (basic)

When we study poverty, we often focus on whether people meet a minimum threshold. However, to understand the health of an economy, we must also look at Inequality—the gap between the rich and the poor. The two primary tools used globally for this are the Lorenz Curve and the Gini Coefficient. Think of the Lorenz Curve as the picture, and the Gini Coefficient as the number that describes that picture.

The Lorenz Curve is a graphical representation of wealth or income distribution. Imagine we line up the entire population of India from the poorest to the richest on the X-axis (cumulative population %) and plot their share of the nation's total income on the Y-axis (cumulative income %). If everyone earned exactly the same amount, we would see a perfectly straight 45-degree diagonal line called the Line of Perfect Equality. In reality, the line always bows downward because the bottom 50% of people usually earn much less than 50% of the income. The further this curve sags away from the diagonal, the higher the inequality in that society Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.45.

The Gini Coefficient (developed by Corrado Gini in 1912) turns this graph into a single mathematical value. It is calculated as the ratio of the area between the diagonal line and the Lorenz curve to the total area under the diagonal line. Its value ranges from 0 to 1:

• 0 (Zero): Represents Perfect Equality (everyone has the same income).
• 1 (One): Represents Perfect Inequality (one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero) Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.44.

In India, inequality varies significantly depending on what you measure. Interestingly, our Consumption Gini (what people spend) is usually lower than our Income Gini or Wealth Gini. This is because even the poorest must spend on basics to survive, while wealth tends to concentrate heavily at the top. For instance, while India's consumption Gini was around 0.36 in 2011-12, the wealth Gini was much higher at 0.74 Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Inclusive growth and issues, p.275.

Metric	Lorenz Curve	Gini Coefficient
Nature	Visual/Graphical tool.	Statistical/Numerical ratio.
Representation	Shows the cumulative share of income against the population.	Distills the degree of inequality into a single number between 0 and 1.
Perfect Equality	Represented by a 45° straight diagonal line.	Represented by a value of 0.

Sources: Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.44-45; Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Inclusive growth and issues, p.275

4. The Shift to Multidimensional Poverty (intermediate)

For decades, India measured poverty through a uni-dimensional lens — essentially asking, "Does this person have enough money to buy a minimum basket of goods?" However, as we progressed, economists realized that income is merely a proxy for well-being. A family might have just enough money to cross the 'poverty line' but still lack access to clean water, a nearby school, or life-saving healthcare. This realization led to the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which views poverty not just as a lack of money, but as an accumulation of deprivations that people experience simultaneously Economics, Class IX NCERT, Poverty as a Challenge, p.32.

The first major shift in India's domestic approach came with the Suresh Tendulkar Committee (2009). This committee made a landmark departure by moving away from strict calorie-norm anchoring (the old 2400/2100 kcal rule). They observed that there was a poor correlation between calorie intake and actual nutritional outcomes. Instead, they expanded the 'poverty basket' to include private consumer expenditure on health and education, effectively setting the stage for a broader definition of poverty Economics, Class IX NCERT, Poverty as a Challenge, p.41.

On the global stage, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) introduced the Global MPI in 2010. Unlike the World Bank’s 'extreme poverty' measure (living on less than $1.90 a day), the MPI captures 'acute' poverty across three dimensions: Health, Education, and Standard of Living Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.35. India has since localized this through the National MPI (NMPI), curated by NITI Aayog. While the global index uses 10 indicators, India’s version uses 12 developmental indicators — adding 'Antenatal Care' and 'Bank Accounts' to better reflect our specific national priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Economics, Class IX NCERT, Poverty as a Challenge, p.33.

Aspect	Traditional Poverty Line	Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
Primary Focus	Income or Consumption Expenditure	Overlapping Deprivations
Measurement	Indirect (Money as a proxy)	Direct (Assessing actual life conditions)
Indicators	Cost of a basic food/non-food basket	12 Indicators (Nutrition, Schooling, Assets, etc.)

Sources: Economics, Class IX NCERT, Poverty as a Challenge, p.32-33, 41; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.35

5. Social Welfare & Targeting (PDS & SECC) (intermediate)

Once we have defined the poverty line, the next logical step is Targeting—identifying the specific households that should receive benefits. Historically, India used 'BPL Censuses' to identify the poor, but these were often criticized for being inaccurate. The Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 marked a major shift. Unlike previous methods that focused almost exclusively on income, SECC captured a wide range of data including housing, deprivation, employment, and land ownership Vivek Singh, Inclusive growth and issues, p.256. This allows for evidence-based interventions, moving the government away from a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to targeting specific dimensions of poverty, such as lack of clean cooking fuel or inadequate housing Vivek Singh, Inclusive growth and issues, p.257.
The National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013 transformed the way we look at social welfare by introducing a rights-based approach to food security. Instead of viewing food aid as mere charity, it became a legal entitlement for nearly two-thirds of the population. Under the NFSA, coverage is quite extensive: 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population are eligible to receive subsidized food grains through the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) Nitin Singhania, Agriculture, p.334. This legislation also serves a social empowerment function: the eldest woman in the household (aged 18 or older) is designated as the Head of the Household for the purpose of issuing ration cards Nitin Singhania, Agriculture, p.359.
To ensure that the 'right' people are selected and fraud is minimized, the SECC data is often validated through Gram Sabhas and linked with Aadhaar. This 'Targeting' mechanism is now the backbone of several major schemes beyond just food, including the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (LPG connections) and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Housing) Vivek Singh, Inclusive growth and issues, p.257. By using SECC data, the government can prioritize households based on specific deprivation criteria (like households with no adult male member or landless households) rather than just a single income number.

Sources: Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24), Inclusive growth and issues, p.256-257; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania (2nd ed. 2021-22), Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.41; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania (2nd ed. 2021-22), Agriculture, p.334, 359

6. Tendulkar Committee Methodology (2009) (exam-level)

The Suresh Tendulkar Committee (constituted in 2005, report in 2009) represents a watershed moment in how India views poverty. Before this, poverty was largely seen through the narrow lens of calorie intake (the Lakdawala method). Tendulkar argued that this was insufficient because there is often a poor correlation between calorie consumption and actual nutritional outcomes. Consequently, the committee moved toward a broader consumption-based approach that included private spending on health and education Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.39. One of the most radical shifts introduced was the unified reference basket. Previously, India used separate baskets of goods for rural and urban areas. Tendulkar scrapped this, using the All-India Urban Poverty Line Basket (PLB) as the benchmark for both. By applying the urban consumption standard to rural India (adjusted for price differences), the committee found that rural poverty was much higher than previously thought. This was because the rural population was now being measured against a more modern, diverse basket of goods rather than just survival-level calories Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.39. Methodologically, the committee also shifted from the Uniform Recall Period (URP) to the Mixed Recall Period (MRP). Under URP, people were asked about their consumption over the last 30 days. MRP, however, tracks expensive, non-food items (like clothes or durables) over a 365-day period while keeping food items on a 30-day cycle, providing a more stable and realistic picture of household spending Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.40.

Feature	Lakdawala Method (Old)	Tendulkar Method (New)
Anchor	Strict Calorie Norms	Consumption Basket (incl. Health/Edu)
Reference	Separate Rural/Urban Baskets	Unified All-India Urban Basket
Data Method	Uniform Recall Period (URP)	Mixed Recall Period (MRP)

Sources: Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.39; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.40

7. Refining the Estimate: Rangarajan Committee (2014) (exam-level)

In 2012, the Indian government constituted a committee under C. Rangarajan to review the methodology for poverty estimation. This was primarily a response to the intense public and media backlash against the Tendulkar Committee's poverty lines (₹27 for rural and ₹33 for urban areas), which were seen as too low to support a dignified life Vivek Singh, Inclusive growth and issues, p.256. The Rangarajan Committee (2014) sought to refine these estimates by moving beyond a narrow "subsistence" view to a more realistic consumption-based approach.

One of the most significant shifts was the method of data collection. While Tendulkar used the Mixed Recall Period (MRP), Rangarajan adopted the Modified Mixed Recall Period (MMRP). Under MMRP, the recall period is 7 days for highly perishable items (edible oil, eggs, fish), 365 days for durables (clothing, footwear, education, medical care), and 30 days for everything else Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.36, 40. This variation is believed to capture consumption patterns more accurately by aligning the recall period with the frequency of purchase.

Additionally, the Rangarajan Committee broadened the nutritional criteria. While previous committees focused almost exclusively on calories, Rangarajan argued that a balanced diet must include proteins and fats Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.40. The committee also reverted to the practice of calculating rural and urban poverty lines separately, rather than using a common urban basket for both Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.39. The resulting poverty lines were higher—₹32 per day for rural and ₹47 per day for urban areas—which naturally increased the estimated number of people living in poverty compared to the Tendulkar estimates.

To help you visualize the shift, here is how the two committees differ on key parameters:

Feature	Tendulkar Committee (2009)	Rangarajan Committee (2014)
Data Method	MRP (Mixed Recall Period)	MMRP (Modified Mixed Recall Period)
Nutritional Norms	Only Calories (though not strictly anchored)	Calories + Protein + Fat
Unit of Measurement	Per capita monthly expenditure	Monthly expenditure of a family of five
Poverty Ratio (2011-12)	21.9%	29.5%

Sources: Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.36; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.39; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment, p.40; Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Inclusive growth and issues, p.256

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question perfectly bridges the gap between historical poverty estimation and the modern methodology you just studied. The Suresh Tendulkar Committee (2009) was tasked with addressing the flaws of the older Lakdawala methodology, which relied on separate baskets and rigid calorie counts. To arrive at the correct answer, you must apply the concept of methodological shift: the committee moved from a food-only focus to a broader consumption-based approach that included private expenditure on health and education. Because they wanted a uniform standard across the country, they adopted the all-India urban poverty line basket as the universal reference, making Statement 1 correct.

When evaluating Statement 2, think like a coach: "What was the single biggest change Tendulkar introduced?" It was the explicit decision to move away from calorie-based anchoring. The committee realized that calorie intake was a poor proxy for nutritional outcomes, especially as the consumption patterns of the poor were changing. By recognizing that the committee abandoned the official food calorie norms to account for other vital needs, you can instantly mark Statement 2 as incorrect. This logical elimination leaves you with the correct answer, (A) 1 only.

UPSC frequently uses "historical continuity" as a trap. Statement 2 is a classic example—it describes the previous methodology (the Alagh and Lakdawala eras) to see if you can distinguish between the old and the new. Many students fall for Option (C) because they assume that calories remained the foundation of all poverty reports. However, by remembering that Tendulkar's reform was a departure from the past, you avoid the trap. As noted in the PIB Release on Tendulkar Committee and the Planning Commission report on poverty estimates, this shift was essential to reflect the actual cost of living in contemporary India.