FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-Vi-6-1999.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
)
MYTHS
o’'* . VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
c
■•
----- -
---
Vol V# 6/99
INFORMATION BULLETIN
The DevelopmentAlibi: The Poverty Line Myth- II
COMMENT
n gaining Independence one of the
paramount tasks of the new government
was tackling mass poverty. In the following
decades, however,the aspiration was sidelined. When
the Constitution of free India was framed the right
of each Indian citizen to a secure livelihood and to
human dignity as inalienable right was not included
but relegated to the Directive Principles of State Policy.
These Principles are a laudable albeit unattainable ideals
at best; not binding, time-bound decisions. After
Independence, however, the intensity and fervour with
which the struggle for Independence had been waged
began to fade.
By 1950 the ruling bloc began to realise that the
rhetoric had to give way to responsible action in the
realm of self-governance; that the issue of poverty
would have to be the facade that the Constitution
would maintain while the
lousiness
of
the
government would have an
agenda of its own. Poverty
eradication, thus, became a
separate and stand-alone'
item on the government
agenda when it became
evident that the economic
development programme
worked out in the Five
Year Plans failed to address
the issue as was required
and would not be able to
make an impact on the
growing numbers of the
poor. By this time Development had already gone
astray and parted ways with the goal of emancipating
the masses from poverty and misery a situation that
has not changed in any significant manner for the
better. From here on poverty eradication was set up
as a separate agenda for which funds were separately
allocated. But not surprisingly it was soon replaced
by “poverty alleviation”, reflecting the myth that
poverty in India cannot be eradicated.
Poverty as a major social concern emerged during
the colonial era and since then India has taken the
lead in poverty studies. The debates on it, however,
originated in the tradition of poverty measurement
in 19th century Britain where moral divisions among
the poor overlapped with the introduction of
‘scientific’ measurement. The tradition viewed the
poor as incapable and irresponsible, and therefore
accountable for their own plight; and also as passive
but potentially dangerous if organised by external
forces. Such conceptualization necessarily feed into
and direct policy making,
because even in our socalled modern society
value judgments still
determine to a large
extent how policy is
made. “If poverty studies
argue that the poor are
incapable and need to be
lifted, raised or levitated
above the poverty line,
anti-poverty programmes
become blunt instruments
which aim to haul the
poor to a given income.
If poverty studies argue
FACTS against MYTHS
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
that the poor are dangerous, anti-poverty programmes
become instruments of social control.”2
Given its changed position on tackling mass poverty
the Indian State has failed to have the political will to
address the socio-economic disparities. It opted to
pursue the soft alternative of just managing poverty
rather than eradicating it whereby it has hoped to
reconcile its fundamental goals of accumulation,
legitimacy, and the maintenance of social and political
harmony. “...Fundamentally, the Indian state is
committed in doing as much as it can to resolve the
poverty problem but without rocking the boat...”3 It
has since been concerned with merely reducing the
human to the statistical level. Through the poverty
line for instance. The formulation is the major focus
of any approach to development and almost all
analysis indeed continue to delineate the poor as a set
of statistics, ignoring all but their number, income
levels and nutritional intake, etc. The very precision
of the criteria, however, belies the fact that the
selection of a poverty line by distinguishing those who
are declared to be poor from those who are not is
thus essentially a political act4
Shifting the poverty line up or down by a few rupees
has implications for the number of people included
in each category and on their eligibility for certain kinds
of public assistance.
The imaginary line is intended to separate those who
fall below it — the absolutely poor — from the
relatively poor who are measured in relation to the
incomes of the rest of society (e.g. the lowest quintile).
The latter also refers to the political relevance of
income inequality in the economy and to income
redistribution policies rather than direct interventions.4
All such and other attempts to reduce the omnibus
category of”poverty” to one or another quantifiable
“indicator” needs to be clarified and the myths on it
shattered.
MYTH : Poverty can be eradicated through
reforms within the existing socio-economic
structures of the country itself.
FACT : 50 years down the road of Independence
India is yet to arrive anywhere near this claim.
Development programmes of the Government have
failed to make a major impact on the incidence of
poverty. Despite the living standards of numerous
rural families having improved, the overall effect has
been a failure. Poverty has not only increased but has
since worsened owing to the so-called economic
reforms of the 90s evidence to which are the suicides
by farmers. (See Box above)
FACTS against MYTHS
,
■ .
=?
....
Farmer’s Suicides5
Between December 1997 and March 1998
there have reports of 300 suicides by
- farmers in Andhra Pradesh alone (90 per
cent of which are concentrated in the
Telegana areas). The rest of the country,
Karnataka, Maharastra and more
specifically Punjab also reported similar
large-scale desperate irreversible response
by peasants both from backward and richer
regions. Most of those who committed
suicide were small and marginal farmers
growing cotton, sunflower and groundnut.
This has been made out to be a result of a
‘natural crisis’ of either less than normal
rainfall or attack from pests which
destroyed crops and leaving the poor
farmers no choice but to take the tragic
decision in the face of heavy indebtedness.
But these deaths were a direct result of
the policies followed by the government
in the name of economic reforms.
The stand that poverty can be eradicated within the
existing socio-economic system — the approaches
to all-round development— compromises its efforts
right from the very outset. Such traditional approach
is nothing but an endeavour to play around with one
concept after the other with the hope that the next
will be successful. As is now well known, these hopes
have been largely belied. Community development
programmes, Cooperatives, SITRA (Supply of
Improved Tool Kits), DWCRA (Development of
Women & Children in Rural Areas), MWS (Million
Wells Scheme), IRDP (Integrated RuraPfe
Development), TRYSEM (Training for Rural Youth
for Self Employment), “Green Revolution”, including
the various IMF/WB imposed “strategies” have all
collapsed with disastrous results in some cases. Recently,
the major programmes for rural development and
poverty alleviation has been re-structured by the
Central Government to involve the Panchayati Raj
institutions to providing more employment
opportunities in rural areas.
MYTH : The problem of India’s mass poverty
can be rooted out by effectively implementing the
various poverty alleviation programmes.
FACT : At best, this is a strategy that merely
ameliorates rather than eradicates mass poverty. Just
consider the levels of production worldwide and
2
patterns
of
overconsumption in various
parts of the world, especially
in the North, it is
unacceptable that poverty
‘alleviation’ rather than
‘eradication’
is
the
predominant concern of
Governments,
NGOs
including UN and other
related agencies. Yet, since
the late 1980s, “poverty
alleviation” has become a
“conditionality” of World
Bank loan agreements.
“Poverty
alleviation'’
supports the objective of
debt-servicing: “sustainable
poverty reduction” and is
predicated on slashing
social-sector budgets and
redirecting expenditure on a
selective and token basis “in
favour of the poor”. These
are meant to provide “a
flexible mechanism” for
“managing poverty” while at
the same time dismantling the
state’s public finances. The
poor are defined in this
framework as “target
groups”. So-called “targeted
programmes” earmarked
“to help the poor”
combined with “cost
recovery”
and
the
“privatization” of health and
educational services are said
to constitute “a more
efficient” way of delivering
social programmes.
In January 1979, a Task Force came
up with a methodology fo'r ■
estimating the incidence of poverty
that has . been used by the Planning
i Commission ever since.. That was
the ‘Task Force on -.ProEjection of
Minimum Needs and Effective
I Cdhsumption. Demand’. It defined
the poverty line as the. per: capita
: expenditure level at which the
average calorie intake was 2,435
.- .calories and 2,095 calories for a .
• personiin rural and - urban areas :•
//respectively. It ’Considered, norms
..recommended by:the Nutrition
Expert sGroup of 1968. Using, these,
it. estimate the average daily per :
./.capita requirements of people: in
urban and urban areas based on age,
sex, and occupational structured of
the population. For convenience, it.
rounded off the calories norms to
2,400 calories and 2,100 calories per
person per day for rural and urban
.areas.
i
The Planning Commission uses
survey
conducted
by
the
Government’s. National Sample
’ Survey Organisation (NSSO) every
• five years on the consumption
patterns p£ over 5000,000 households
across the country. From these, that
expenditure group is selected whose.
spending on food affords 2,400
calories and 2,100 calories a day for
. a rural and urban person respectively;
y So. the per capita expenditure of this
group'becomes the ‘line’. All groups
whose .spending is below this are
below.the poverty line.
J
In common parlance, to
alleviate a condition is to
ease it, to reduce it — like lessening pain, which is
usually a symptom of something else rather than a
fundamental condition. Or, like applying balm to
relieve pain alleviation of poverty provides some
relief to the beneficiaries but not a cure.
Ultimately, this means that as long as there are people
living in poverty and misery, action to alleviate poverty
not only has a welcome place but has become a vibrant
growth industry today! Moreover, in spite of failures
Q FACTS against MYTHS
in tackling poverty the
government continues to
launch
anti-poverty
programmes
raising
allocations year after year. The
reason, obviously, is the
government wants the money
allocated
for
these
programmes to be doled out
to the intermediaries, the non
poor middlemen, one of the
biggest sources of corruption
the country. Why? “Because
these middlemen have the
muscle power to get
politicians a few votes at the
time of the elections...”
Evidently, poverty alleviation
has an important political
connotation. It is an important
tool in which the ruling bloc
try to deal with a potentially
serious political situation.
Large amounts of public
money have traditionally been
allocated to this sector
because of its relevance in
maintaining the political
equilibrium without which the
remaining activities of the
state cannot be maintained. In
this sense, the poverty
alleviation programme is
presented as an alibi for
authentic development, and as
such, is counter to the march
of progress.
Finally, this strategy begs the
question whether it is true the
poor have always been with
us and should they continue
■ ...
■ —4
to be with us so that alleviating
their condition can continue?
MYTH : The Poverty Line measurement is the
correct yardstick to know the nature and depth
of poverty in India.
FACT: On decoding, the poverty line yardstick means
that, assuming a person belonging to a rural household
of 5 members with a total monthly consumption
which is less than Rs. 1,145 a month (individual: Rs.229)
the person is below the poverty line. But even being
slightly over that in no way solves the person’s poverty.
It nevertheless satisfies official criteria — and places
the person above the Tine’.
In India the first attempt at defining a poverty line
was in 1957 at the Indian Labour Conference. In 1962
a working group of eminent economists and social
thinkers tried to draw up one after considering the
recommendations of the Nutrition Advisory
Committee of the ICMR (Indian Council of Medical
Research) on a balanced diet. It however excluded
items like expenditure on health and education from
the ‘national minimum’ leaving these as the
responsibility to the State, constitutionally bound to
provide these to its citizens. Ever since, the State has
been continuously failing to fulfill these responsibilities
as in other similar obligations. Yet, the calorie norm
and private consumer expenditure is steadfastly
adhered to!
This measurement of poverty has however come in
for sever criticism resulting in an expert committee
being set up in 1989 by the Planning Commission to
study this methodology. In 1993, the Committee
submitted a report with several suggestions which, if
adopted, the nur. jer of people below the poverty
line would increase sharply. For instance, there was a
huge gap in the number of poor as estimated by the
old methods and those used by the expert group. For
1987-88, the group’s figure of those below the
poverty line was 312 million, against the 237 million
arrived at by the old methods. But the Planning
Commission rejected the recommendations of the
group. So the movement of huge numbers of people
above or below the ‘line’ can often bear little relation
to ground reality. It can happen simply owing to
changes in methods of calculation. The expert group
recognised the ‘continued necessity and utility of
poverty estimation’.6 But it drew attention to several
limitations of the existing approach. It noted that
►► The poverty line provides the conceptual
rationalisation for looking at the poor as a
‘category’ to be taken care of through
targeted ameliorative programmes, ignoring
structural inequalities and other factors which
generate, sustain, and reproduce poverty;
►► The poverty line, quantified as a number, is
reductionist It does not capture important
aspects of poverty — ill-health, low
educational achievements, geographical
location, ineffective access to law,
powerlessness in civil society, caste and/or
gender-based disadvantages;
FACTS against MYTHS
►► The head-count ratio based on the poverty
line ‘does not capture the severity of poverty
in terms of the poverty deficit (total shortfall
from the poverty line) or additional the
distribution of consumption expenditure
among the poor;
►► In a country of India’s size and diversity, a
poverty line based on aggregation at all-India
level ignores state-specific variations in
consumption patters and/or prices;
►► The notion of ‘absolute poverty” is inadequate
because ‘relative poverty’ is also an equally
important aspect of poverty and is, in fact, a
determinant of absolute poverty at given level
of national income. More generally, the
concepts of inequality and poverty, although
distinct, need to be constantly viewed together
as closely associated concepts;
H It does not ‘take into account items of social
consumption such as basic education and
health, drinking water supply, sanitation,
environmental standards, etc., in terms of
normative requirements or effective access’.
Specifically, the calorie consumption concept
underestimates the poverty because it calculates only
the consumption of food articles, neglecting other
basic necessities of life. The concept is also seriously
constradicted when it assumes that the contents of
food remain the same throughout the country. As
stated above, the staple diet itself changes from state
to state as well as its prices. The above observations
make for very disturbing conclusions, viz., that by
merely re-defining the poverty line the proportion of
the poor can be virtually reduced as if by one wave
of the wand. Moreover, in the past, whenever the
estimates of the NSSO contradicted the claims of
the Planning Commission, it was the habit of the
government spokesmen to dismiss this with the
argument that the NSSO estimates were unreliable or
that the methodologies of successive survey were not
comparable.
In the mid-sixties the Planning Commission had come
up with a brainwave — it established a new
methodology to derive fantastic results, “...Noting
that the estimate of aggregate consumption by the
NSSO is significantly lower than those of the
CSO,(Central Statistical Organisation) the Planning
Commission decided to “blow up” the figures in such
a way that the poverty ratio falls below 20 per cent.
And thus it would appear that India is no poorer than the
usa..:"
4
MYTH : The number of poor living below the
poverty line in India has come down to around
19%.
FACT : This is an illustration of how, through the
manipulation of figures, such a formulation is arrived
at! It emanates fam none other than the Government’s
statistical survey, the Economic Survey 1995-96. It
informs that around 168.5 m. people had levels of
food consumption that were less than the minimum
required for sustenance. It is claimed that over the
space of 7 years, 70 m. people were lifted out of
poverty and that there were no “new” poor in spite
of the population having risen from 795* m. to 889
m. between 1987-88 and 1993-94. But an expert
group, appointed by the Planning Commission itself,
using an alternative methodology, had estimated the
incidence of poverty in 1987-88 at 38 per cent —
much more than the Planning Commission’s estimate
| of 30 per cent. In fact, using this alternative
methodology, it will be noted that poverty has actually
risen during the reform process as shown below.
Percentage below Poverty Line1
This means that to arrive at this figure of 19 per cent,
though not deliberately, the Planning Commission had
adjusted the NSS data with the much higher income
data of theCSO. But P. Shastri in the Outlook magazine
(25-12-1996) citing the NCAER study showed that
“The problem of using state domestic product data
is that it includes productivity of machines too and is
consequently much higher. It’s not survey data. This is
done on the plea that the poor tend to understate
their consumption. That’s wrong, only the rich do that.
Secondly, the last Commission estimate came out of
a much smaller sample of NSS (50th round)
compared to the five-yearly samples of 1.5 lakh
people. As a result, the disparity between the actual
observed expenditure and state incomes is growing.
And poverty is falling dramatically”. The NCAER
study shows how the figure for rural poverty as 39
percent in 1993-94 (poverty line equals Rs.2,944 per
year), a little higher than the new estimates. It noted
that poverty has increased in intensity—the Amartya
Sen index for India is only 0.18. For instance, 16 per
cent of the poor have a daily income of Rs.3 and
another 18 per cent get Rs. 5.5.
This analysis points out that methodological differences
do produce differences in the estimates but to state
that the thesis is not intrinsic to just India is meaningless.
The poor who notice people gulping half a dozen
bottles of mineral water wish to know if s/he could
buy one single bottle of “Bisleri’ with the whole of
consumption expenditure equivalent to the poverty
line? If s/he does, s/he will have to live on water
only!
It is obvious that utter confusion typifies the issue of
poverty estimates. To further illustrate this confusion
the Indian Express (9-3-98) showed how the Congress
government in 1998 announced that poverty had
reduced by 11 per cent between 1987-1988 to 199394'. But later when the United Front took over, the
figures were revised to a mere 2.89 per cent fall. But
to another study, carried out by the Indian Statistical
Institute, showed that during the same period the actual
fall was 6.26 per cent—more than what the UF said
but less than what Congress Claimed. The estimates
were arrived at by using the same data?!
Source: EPW, June 3,1995
C FACTS against MYTHS
Evidently, despite laws and amendments and various
poverty elimination and rural development schemes
no significant impact has been made on poverty. The
Government’s entire programme on poverty
alleviation has concentrated on juggling the poverty
figures to prove that the percentage of Indian people
living below the poverty line has been decreasing. This
juggling itself shows the callousness of the
government and its agencies, who measure poverty
levels on the basis of whether people can get a
minimum amount of calories. The poverty line is
already fixed at a low level of consumption. It is
estimated that about 1,800 kcal are spent just in
maintaining the human body1 and engage in light
physical activity. For heavy physical labour, the
requirements can be high as 3,200 kcal.
Poverty estimates thus, hide the fact that humans
cannot survive only by consuming a certain number
of minimum calories of food. To ensure against
malnutrition there is need for nourishment provided
by pulses, vegetables, milk and meat. There is need
for potable water, sanitation, proper accommodation
and a clean, healthy, peaceful and stable environment
conducive to a decent mode of existence.
MYTH : Overpopulation is also the underlying
cause ofpoverty in India resulting in ecological
destruction as well as being an impediment to
the reduction of the absolute number of poor.
Further, the density ofpopulation per acre ofland
is far too great to he conducive to productivity.
FACT : First and foremost as stated above,
throughout the colonial period, most Indians lived in
poverty and on the verge of starvation. In the second
half of the 19th century, the poverty of the people
found expression in a series of famines which ravaged
all parts of the country and carried away nearly 30
million people. To illustrate: the Bengal Famine of
1769-70 it was manufactured by the British, by buying
up all the rice and refusing to sell it again except at
exorbitant prices. The following excerpts from the
NCERT publication, India StruggleFor Independence, (pg.
16) on the effects of this famine cite the British Report
of the Indian Famine Commissions (1880) appointed
by the colonial government itself:
"The loss of the country in material wealth cannot be
calculated; the loss of life is believed to have been greater
than has occurred in any subsequent or historicalfamine.
In the north of Purneah the European supervisors
believed that half the ryots were dead; the Resident of
Behar calculated the famine mortality at 200,000 in
May, the Resident of Murshidabad in June estimated
that by that time three-eight of the population of the
province bad died; in July 500 died daily in that town...^ J
The estimate made by the Council in November 1772...
was that one-third of the population had died, and this,
as Mr. Hunter remarks implies the death of about 10
millions, as the whole population of Bengal in those
days can hardly be estimated at less than 30 million...".
Nor was the stagnation in per capita income to be
explained by a high rate of population growth.
Between 1871 and 1921, the population grew at a
rate of 0.4 per year. The rate
picked up after 1921 but was
still merely around 1.4 per cent
between 1921 and 1951.
The related argument on
“overpopulation” is also
baseless and to single it out as
being responsible for mass
poverty is to downplay the^ '
destruction
caused
by
consumerist lifestyles, the
mechanisms of the market and
so-called free trade. Besides, the
poor
accused for the
“overpopulation” problem, are
not mainly responsible for the
greenhouse gases, either today
or historically. Furthermore, as
Pierre Pradevand had written
in "The Malthusian Man”
(1974) the so-called population
problem of the South is the
greatest red herring in the field
of human development. "By
stressing population in such an
C FACTS against MYTHS
isolated, simplistic manner, neo-Malthusian
thinking might have lost the world twenty
preciousyears in solving...poverty. If twenty
years ago, India had undertaken massive
structural changes, a real land reform
programme, and distributed services and
resources more equally among its people
instead of tying to persuade illiterate women
to adopt the rhythm method by bribing them
with coloured beads, it would probably not
now be sterilising people at the rate of
63,000 in two weeks... Nor would it have
to admit that millions of its people are worse
off than they werefifteenyears ago... At the
root of Indian population problem is not
'copulation* but an alliance of national and
Western vested interests which is opposed to
radical change”.
MYTH: The idealprescription against
^poverty is a higher rates of economic
growth.
FACT : But if the process of market
oriented economic growth is itself the
source of depriving increasing numbers of people
of their means of livelihood, then how will this kind
of growth cure the diseases of poverty? As a
weliknown saying has it: If the boatman himself is
rocking the boat, then who will save it from disaster?
Given that the number of those who are being uplifted
through government programmes every year is far
less than the number of new additions to the stock
of poor, what is the solution? Is it to allocate even
more funds for poverty alleviation programmes or is
to do something about the fact that economic growth
deprives people of their livelihood? The second is
Jpbviously more promising, for if the economy could
grow without displacing and driving millions into
poverty, then where is the need for poverty alleviation
programmes? To pursue the crumbs that come their
way and save themselves by falling into this “safety
net”, or to work towards the reorientation of the
economy to ensure prosperity of each — these are
the two alternatives facing the poor and prospective
poor of this country. The first alternative can satisfy
at most a small minority of the poor. The second
alternative will therefore inevitably prevail one day.
How soon? That is the all important question.
WHY DO THE RICH STAY RICH &
THE POOR STAY POOR?
Source : Richard Holloway & David Watson (eds),
Changing Focus-Involving the Rural Poor in Development
Planning (Oxford & IBH Publishing: N. Delhi, 1989
References
1.
The Review of Contemporary News & Views, Nos.2, 3 &
5, New Delhi, 1998.
2.
Beck, T. The Experience of Poverty, I. T. Publications,
London, 1994.
3.
Tremblay, R.C. Growth with Justice: Understanding
Poverty, in The India Handbook, ed. C.S. LaRue, Fitzroy
Dearborn Publishers, Chicago, 1997.
4.
Friedmann, J. Rethinking Poverty: Empowerment and
Citizen Rights, UNESCO, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,
1996.
5.
Alternative Economic Survey, 1991-98, Rainbow
Publishers, Oxford, 1996.
6.
Sainath, P. Everybody Loves A Good Drought, Penguin
Books, New Delhi, 1996.
7.
Poverty Issues, Integral Liberation, # 4, Bangalore, 1997.
8.
Poverty in World Politics: Whose Global Era? Millennium,
#3, London School of Economics, London, 1996.
9.
Ranadive, K., The Political Economy of Poverty, Orient
Longman, Bombay, 1990.
10.
Krishnakumar, A. Exploding a Myth, Frontline, February
11, Madras, 1994.
(See past issues of this publication for a critique on ‘Economic Growth3).
Q FACTS against MYTHS
Women & Poverty
Two out of three women around the world are poor. .Women are not only, much more likely
than men to be poor, but are most often among the poorest of the poor. Millions of women are
caught in a cycle of■ poverty that begins even before they are bom. Babies born to women who
did not get enough to eat during pregnancy are likely to be small at birth and to develop slowly.
In poor families girls are less likely than their brothers to get enough to eat, causing their
growth to be further stunted. Girls are often given little or ho education, so as women they
must work at unskilled jobs and receive less wages than men (even if they do the same kind of
work). At home, their daily work is unpaid. Exhaustion, poor nutrition and lack of good care
during pregmmcy place the women and her children at risk for poor health. Poverty forces her
to live under conditions that can cause many physical and mental helath problems. For example,
poor women often :
live in bad housing, with little or no
sanitation or clean water.
►►
do not have enough good food, and must
spend precious time and energy looking
for food they can afford.
►►
are forced to accept dangerous work, or
to work very long hours.
►►
cannot use medical care, even if it is free,
because they cannot afford time off work
or away from their families.
►►
are so busy struggling to survive that they have little time or energy to take care of their
own needs, to plan for a better future, or to learn new skills.
►►
are blamed for their poverty and made to feel less important than those with more money.
Poverty often forces women into relationships in which they must depend on men for survival.
If a woman depends on a man for her-or her children* s-support, she may have to do things to
keep him happy that are dangerous to her health. For example, she may allow him to be violent
or to have unsafe sex because she fears losing his economic support.
Source: Where Women Have No Doctor, 1997.
et
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
de velopment models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
m
MMr
I
\
,
.
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
D-1 Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA |
S : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Fax : 889 8941
I
|
,
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
I
Printed by : Omega Offset, 2/3, Emerald Corner,
Maratha Colony, Tilakwadi, Belgaum 590 006.
|
pplNTED xMATrj; R
BOOK-POST
S62 The Secretary
Community Health Cell
No.367 Srinivasa Nilaya
Jakkasandra, I Main, I Block
Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034
Not viewed