This was the second rude wake-up call for the Indian policy establishment in just over six months. In November 2009，an expert group tasked with ending the long-running argument over poverty trends since India stepped on to the pathway ofliberalisation and globalisation，came up with an answer that was，from the perspective of the new policy orientation and its partisans，good in some respects，but bad in most. Poverty measures，the Expert Group admitted，had been badly askew in failing to address the vast changes in economic realities since 1979，when a “poverty line” was fixed in terms of a daily nutritional intake for both the rural and urban population. This was then converted into a monetary equivalent using prices applicable at the time. Ever since，the poverty line in its monetary value，has been updated annually using the relevant consumer price index.

This method obviously fails to capture the many material changes that have taken place in production and consumption patterns，including the increasing dependence upon commodity exchange rather than subsistence farming or payments in kind，the erosion of common property resources，and a variety of other circumstances. The 1979 estimate of poverty for instance，provided no room for an individual’s or a family’s health care needs，since those were days when public delivery of health services was considered an entitlement. Today，with the reality of India’s public health care system a large and growing scandal，there is a need to revisit that rather complacent assumption.

Recent policy decisions in the realm of education may have made a difference to the poor in terms of the access they have to publicly-funded institutions. The Supreme Court in 2002 decreed that government schools all over the country should introduce mid-day meals for all enrolled students with immediate effect. This directive has been implemented patchily，but surveys in states that were positive and responsive to this judicial decree，such as Rajasthan，have shown that school enrollment did indeed，increase as a consequence of the noon feedingprogramme.

Though educational access is not formally among the variables that goes into the poverty index，the derived impact on nutrition is something to be taken into account.

Noon feeding in schools relieves the typical family that lives on the margin of subsistence of the anxiety that a child sent to school any given day，might detract from economic earnings that particular day. Schooling for the poor is not about terms of years，but a day to day struggle. In terms of economic theory，the “opportunity cost”- i.e.，the earnings foregone-by sending children to school，even when education is free，is neutralised by the provision of noon meals.

The noon-meals programme also sets free the care-giver within the family-the mother or the older sister-to partake of economically earning activities and to supplement family earnings. While providing for better nutrition levels and reduced anxiety among female care-givers who are compelled to enter the labour market，noon feeding has contributed to poverty reduction in sparing the typical household the expense of providing one meal for its children. The rest of the family would conceivably enjoy better earnings and derivatively，improved access to nutrition and the other necessities of life，for the 180 days a year that the children are at school. The broader impact on poverty will have to wait one generation，when the children who gain an education today，grow to adulthood.

The poverty estimates that are available though，do not pertain to any moment in time when the noon feeding scheme may have had an impact for the better. Poverty is estimated on the basis of consumer expenditure surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey （NSS）Organisation every five years. The last available sample is from 2004-05 and all the arguments so far have revolved around this and two earlier surveys，of 1999-2000 and 1993-94.

A serious dissonance in the whole debate was introduced in the 1999-2000 round，which asked respondents about their consumption of certain of life’s necessities and indulgences，over three distinct recall periods：one week，one month and one year. As experts pointed out then，this contaminated the data at source，rendering it incompatible with earlier estimations.

Simply for this reason，official claims thatIndia had made significant inroads in the battle against poverty in the years of liberalisation，proved contentious. In the official narration，poverty both in terms of ratio （i.e.，people living in poverty as a percentage of population），as well as absolute number，had shown sharp declines between the consumer expenditure surveys undertaken in 1993-94，1999-2000 and 2004-05. More serious scholars，who were by no means hostile to the programme of liberalisation，thought these claims rather overstretched. Certain among them，such a