The controversial Government affidavit on Below Poverty Line cap was condemned by Opposition today as an "insult and betrayal" of the poor and also slammed by a key United Progressive Alliance ally Nationalist Congress Party.
The Congress on its part asserted that the affidavit was "not the last word" and that there can be bona fide differences of opinion.
The affidavit also came under attack from civil society which sarcastically said that if one earns even one rupee more than Rs 32 per day he will not be entitled to a BPL card.
Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council member Aruna Roy criticised the affidavit saying it reflected government's deep lack of empathy for the poor and a perspective completely divorced from reality.
Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Prakash Javadekar threw a challenge to the government to discuss with it the affidavit at any forum, saying this is the worst insult inflicted upon the poor.
"The Planning Commission affidavit in the Supreme Court deciding the number of poor people living below the poverty line is an insult to the poor, who are suffering because of raging inflation and corruption," he said, adding "This is a betrayal of the poor and is akin to rubbing salt on their wounds."
The government had said in the affidavit that the revised benchmark for fixing those falling in BPL category is an earning of Rs 32 per day. Under the new definition, Rs 965 per month in urban areas and Rs 781 per month in rural areas is the criteria fixed for BPL.
Communist Party of India leader D Raja said the affidavit is ridiculous and completely unrealistic and clearly shows the disconnect between the Planning Commission with ground realities.
"The Planning Commission affidavit shows total lack of sensitivity towards the poor and it has been fortunately rejected by a Planning Commission member Abhijit Sen and rightly so," NCP general secretary DP Tripathi told mediapersons.
Congress expressed its readiness to consider all sensitive inputs over the issue while making a plea not to dismiss decisions on such issues off hand.
"This is certainly not the last word. All positive and sensitive inputs can be looked into...every constructive positive element of civil society is entitled to give a positive input. There is no question of taking sensitive inputs lightly.
"There can be bonafide differences of opinion but they should put their views before the Plannning Commission," party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi told mediapersons.
